Digital Turbine vs Dolby Laboratories
APPS and DLB side by side, both in miscellaneous investing. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How APPS and DLB compare
Dolby Laboratories is the larger company, worth 6.4 times as much as Digital Turbine ($6.1B against $939M).
Digital Turbine grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (21.6% versus 0.55% for Dolby Laboratories).
Dolby Laboratories keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 16.7% compared with −0.82% at Digital Turbine.
Dolby Laboratories pays a dividend yielding 2.2%; Digital Turbine does not pay one.
Dolby Laboratories scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 7 for Digital Turbine), 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 | APPS | DLB |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $939M | $6.1B |
| Share price | $7.76 | $64.66 |
| Change, 1 year | 31.1% | −1.3% |
| Change, 5 years | −87.2% | −27.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 2.53 | 0.76 |
| Employees | 620 | 2,051 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 7 | 18 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 2 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 27.5× |
| P/S | 1.5× (better) | 4.5× |
| P/B | 4.8× | 2.3× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.8× (better) | 16.3× |
| P/FCF | – | 15.4× |
| PEG | – | 2.10 |
| FCF yield | – | 6.5% |
| Fair value | $9.06 | $60.97 |
| Margin of safety | 14.3% (better) | −6.1% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 21.6% (better) | 0.55% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 12.5% (better) | 3.0% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | −14.4% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | −13.6% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 3.1% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 56.0% | 87.6% (better) |
| Operating margin | 11.5% | 17.7% (better) |
| Net margin | −0.82% | 16.7% (better) |
| FCF margin | – | 29.0% |
| Return on equity | −3.0% | 8.7% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 7.3% | 10.5% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.80 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.15 | – |
| Interest coverage | 1.1× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.25 | 3.19 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 0.81 | 8.62 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 2.2% |
| Payout ratio | – | 59.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 4 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 8.4% |
| Buyback yield | – | 3.9% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 6.1% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 64.5% | 66.1% |
| Held by insiders | 5.9% | 37.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$2.3K (better) | −$11.4M |
| Short interest, % of float | 10.2% | 10.3% |
Go deeper
- APPS stock overview
- APPS income statement
- APPS valuation and score
- DLB stock overview
- DLB income statement
- DLB valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.