Amphenol vs Emerson Electric
APH and EMR side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How APH and EMR compare
Amphenol is the larger company, worth 2.1 times as much as Emerson Electric ($193B against $92.8B).
On earnings, Amphenol is cheaper: it trades at 34.1× trailing earnings, against 34.7× for Emerson Electric.
Amphenol grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (57.6% versus 5.4% for Emerson Electric).
Amphenol keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 18.0% compared with 14.2% at Emerson Electric.
Both pay dividends: Amphenol yields 0.64% and Emerson Electric 1.3%.
Amphenol scores higher on the StockData Score (22 against 12 for Emerson Electric), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | APH | EMR |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $193B | $92.8B |
| Share price | $78.23 | $166.38 |
| Change, 1 year | 10.2% | 25.6% |
| Change, 5 years | 268% | 78.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.31 | 1.09 |
| Employees | 170K | 70K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 22 (better) | 12 |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 4 | 4 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 34.1× (better) | 34.7× |
| P/S | 5.8× | 4.9× (better) |
| P/B | 11.3× | 4.5× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 19.5× (better) | 20.8× |
| P/FCF | 37.7× | 26.3× (better) |
| PEG | 1.15 | – |
| FCF yield | 2.7% | 3.8% (better) |
| Fair value | $84.37 | $129.24 |
| Margin of safety | 7.3% (better) | −28.7% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 57.6% (better) | 5.4% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 21.8% (better) | 8.0% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 55.2% (better) | 18.5% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 53.0% (better) | 19.8% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 27.8% (better) | 4.6% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 38.8% | 53.4% (better) |
| Operating margin | 27.7% | – |
| Net margin | 18.0% (better) | 14.2% |
| FCF margin | 15.5% | 18.6% (better) |
| Return on equity | 40.0% (better) | 13.1% |
| Return on invested capital | 27.8% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.04 | 0.59 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.19 (better) | 2.09 |
| Interest coverage | 12.0× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.94 (better) | 0.94 |
| Altman Z-score | 5.87 (better) | 4.48 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 9 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.64% | 1.3% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 18.9% | 46.2% |
| Years of dividend growth | 14 | 17 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 23.4% (better) | 1.9% |
| Buyback yield | 0.42% | 1.1% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 1.1% | 2.4% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 94.7% | 82.5% |
| Held by insiders | 0.27% | 0.34% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$406M | −$7.9M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.1% | 1.8% |
Go deeper
- APH stock overview
- APH income statement
- APH valuation and score
- EMR stock overview
- EMR income statement
- EMR valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.