Belden vs Corning
BDC and GLW side by side, both in rolling, drawing, and extruding of nonferrous. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BDC and GLW compare
Corning is the larger company, worth 25 times as much as Belden ($98.3B against $4.0B).
On earnings, Belden is cheaper: it trades at 22.9× trailing earnings, against 46.2× for Corning.
Corning grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (18.8% versus 17.7% for Belden).
Corning keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 12.1% compared with 5.6% at Belden.
Both pay dividends: Belden yields 0.20% and Corning 0.98%.
Corning scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 7 for Belden), 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 | BDC | GLW |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $4.0B | $98.3B |
| Share price | $101.88 | $114.08 |
| Change, 1 year | −12.1% | 28.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 51.9% | 203% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.10 | 1.13 |
| Employees | 7,000 | 11K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 7 | 17 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 22.9× (better) | 46.2× |
| P/S | 1.3× (better) | 5.5× |
| P/B | 2.9× (better) | 7.2× |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.4× (better) | 35.8× |
| P/FCF | 17.4× | – |
| PEG | 20.90 | 7.80 (better) |
| FCF yield | 5.7% | – |
| Fair value | $75.93 | $69.18 |
| Margin of safety | −34.2% (better) | −64.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 17.7% | 18.8% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 9.2% (better) | 6.7% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −22.8% | 57.4% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −21.0% | 56.3% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 27.6% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 36.8% (better) | 36.5% |
| Operating margin | 9.0% | 16.5% (better) |
| Net margin | 5.6% | 12.1% (better) |
| FCF margin | 7.3% | – |
| Return on equity | 13.4% | 17.1% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 8.1% | 13.0% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 2.19 | 0.60 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 5.77 | 1.94 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 8.0× |
| Current ratio | 1.82 (better) | 1.72 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.71 | 4.66 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.20% | 0.98% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 4.4% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 0.00% | 4.9% (better) |
| Buyback yield | −0.34% | – |
| Shareholder yield | −0.15% | 0.98% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 107% | 73.2% |
| Held by insiders | 1.6% | 0.20% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$2.9M (better) | −$98.1M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 3 |
| Short interest, % of float | 9.5% | 1.9% |
Go deeper
- BDC stock overview
- BDC income statement
- BDC valuation and score
- GLW stock overview
- GLW income statement
- GLW valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.