Amphenol vs Jabil
APH and JBL side by side, both in electronic components and accessories. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How APH and JBL compare
Amphenol is the larger company, worth 7.3 times as much as Jabil ($196B against $26.7B).
On earnings, Jabil is cheaper: it trades at 26.6× trailing earnings, against 34.6× for Amphenol.
Amphenol grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (57.6% versus 20.6% for Jabil).
Amphenol keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 18.0% compared with 2.9% at Jabil.
Both pay dividends: Amphenol yields 0.63% and Jabil 0.12%.
Amphenol scores higher on the StockData Score (23 against 15 for Jabil), 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 | JBL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $196B | $26.7B |
| Share price | $79.31 | $258.89 |
| Change, 1 year | 10.3% | 18.1% |
| Change, 5 years | 273% | 317% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.32 | 1.34 |
| Employees | 170K | 30K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 23 (better) | 15 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 5 | 5 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 34.6× | 26.6× (better) |
| P/S | 5.9× | 0.7× (better) |
| P/B | 11.4× (better) | 16.5× |
| EV/EBITDA | 19.7× | 11.9× (better) |
| P/FCF | 38.2× | 19.4× (better) |
| PEG | 1.16 (better) | 1.52 |
| FCF yield | 2.6% | 5.2% (better) |
| Fair value | $85.54 | $243.09 |
| Margin of safety | 7.3% (better) | −6.5% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 57.6% (better) | 20.6% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 21.8% (better) | 4.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 55.2% | 58.6% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 53.0% | 64.7% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 27.8% (better) | 16.3% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 38.8% (better) | 9.2% |
| Operating margin | 27.7% (better) | 4.7% |
| Net margin | 18.0% (better) | 2.9% |
| FCF margin | 15.5% (better) | 3.8% |
| Return on equity | 40.0% | 66.7% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 27.8% | 44.0% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.04 (better) | 2.09 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.19 | 0.69 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 12.0× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.94 (better) | 0.99 |
| Altman Z-score | 5.93 (better) | 2.51 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.63% (better) | 0.12% |
| Payout ratio | 18.9% | 3.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | 14 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 23.4% | – |
| Buyback yield | 0.41% | 4.0% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 1.0% | 4.1% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 94.7% | 99.1% |
| Held by insiders | 0.27% | 2.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$406M | −$57.8M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.1% | 2.9% |
Go deeper
- APH stock overview
- APH income statement
- APH valuation and score
- JBL stock overview
- JBL income statement
- JBL valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.