Baker Hughes vs Eaton
BKR and ETN side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BKR and ETN compare
Eaton is the larger company, worth 2.8 times as much as Baker Hughes ($137B against $49.1B).
Eaton grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (15.5% versus 3.7% for Baker Hughes).
Eaton keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 12.8% compared with 10.1% at Baker Hughes.
Both pay dividends: Baker Hughes yields 1.9% and Eaton 0.93%.
Eaton scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 8 for Baker Hughes), 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 | BKR | ETN |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $49.1B | $137B |
| Share price | $49.44 | $352.97 |
| Change, 1 year | 4.0% | −4.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 119% | 105% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.68 | 1.09 |
| Employees | 56K | 97K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 | 14 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 35.9× |
| P/S | 1.7× (better) | 4.6× |
| P/B | 2.4× (better) | 6.8× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 24.4× |
| P/FCF | 15.2× (better) | 34.8× |
| PEG | – | 1.85 |
| FCF yield | 6.6% (better) | 2.9% |
| Fair value | $27.01 | $229.23 |
| Margin of safety | −83.0% | −54.0% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 3.7% | 15.5% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.0% | 9.0% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 0.24% (better) | −2.5% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | −1.2% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 24.5% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 35.9% |
| Net margin | 10.1% | 12.8% (better) |
| FCF margin | 11.2% | 13.1% (better) |
| Return on equity | 15.1% | 19.7% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.91 (better) | 1.02 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 3.09 |
| Current ratio | 1.24 | 1.24 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.31 | 3.18 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.9% (better) | 0.93% |
| Payout ratio | 31.4% | 43.5% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 15 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 7.3% |
| Buyback yield | 0.00% | 0.40% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 1.9% (better) | 1.3% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 97.2% | 85.3% |
| Held by insiders | 0.13% | 0.19% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$72.6M | −$22.1M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.5% | 1.8% |
Go deeper
- BKR stock overview
- BKR income statement
- BKR valuation and score
- ETN stock overview
- ETN income statement
- ETN valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.