Cadre vs Enovis
CDRE and ENOV side by side, both in surgical, medical, and dental instruments and supplies. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CDRE and ENOV compare
Cadre and Enovis are about the same size, with market caps of $1.4B and $1.6B.
Cadre grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (18.3% versus 3.3% for Enovis).
Cadre keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 5.6% compared with −22.9% at Enovis.
Cadre pays a dividend yielding 0.90%; Enovis does not pay one.
Cadre scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 7 for Enovis), 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 | CDRE | ENOV |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.4B | $1.6B |
| Share price | $33.42 | $27.68 |
| Change, 1 year | −22.7% | −11.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 60.1% | −81.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.01 | 1.14 |
| Employees | 2,533 | 7,802 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 (better) | 7 |
| Valuation score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 36.7× | – |
| P/S | 2.0× | 0.7× (better) |
| P/B | 3.9× | 1.1× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 17.1× | 3.3× (better) |
| P/FCF | 18.7× (better) | 22.9× |
| PEG | 0.43 | – |
| FCF yield | 5.3% (better) | 4.4% |
| Fair value | $29.02 | – |
| Margin of safety | −15.2% | – |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 18.3% (better) | 3.3% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 8.6% | 14.9% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −9.4% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −18.8% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −6.1% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 42.0% | 61.3% (better) |
| Operating margin | 10.7% (better) | −20.6% |
| Net margin | 5.6% (better) | −22.9% |
| FCF margin | 10.4% (better) | 3.0% |
| Return on equity | 11.6% (better) | −30.0% |
| Return on invested capital | 9.0% (better) | −12.3% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.01 | 0.84 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.00 | 1.43 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | −14.7× |
| Current ratio | 2.35 (better) | 2.15 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.96 (better) | 0.29 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.90% | – |
| Payout ratio | 40.6% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 2 | – |
| Shareholder yield | 0.90% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 78.1% | 122% |
| Held by insiders | 27.7% | 2.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$26.3M | $792K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.9% | 18.8% |
Go deeper
- CDRE stock overview
- CDRE income statement
- CDRE valuation and score
- ENOV stock overview
- ENOV income statement
- ENOV valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.