Cadre vs UFP Technologies
CDRE and UFPT 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 UFPT compare
UFP Technologies is the larger company, worth 1.7 times as much as Cadre ($2.4B against $1.4B).
On earnings, UFP Technologies is cheaper: it trades at 31.2× trailing earnings, against 36.4× for Cadre.
Cadre grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (18.3% versus 8.6% for UFP Technologies).
UFP Technologies keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 11.8% compared with 5.6% at Cadre.
Cadre pays a dividend yielding 0.91%; UFP Technologies does not pay one.
Cadre scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 14 for UFP Technologies), 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 | UFPT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.4B | $2.4B |
| Share price | $33.08 | $305.91 |
| Change, 1 year | −24.2% | 24.6% |
| Change, 5 years | 58.5% | 340% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.00 | 1.04 |
| Employees | 2,533 | 4,846 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 (better) | 14 |
| Valuation score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Performance score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 36.4× | 31.2× (better) |
| P/S | 1.9× (better) | 3.6× |
| P/B | 3.9× (better) | 4.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | 16.9× (better) | 24.3× |
| P/FCF | 18.6× | – |
| PEG | 0.43 (better) | 1.82 |
| FCF yield | 5.4% | – |
| Fair value | $29.05 | $255.85 |
| Margin of safety | −13.9% (better) | −19.6% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 18.3% (better) | 8.6% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 8.6% | 27.4% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −9.4% | 14.0% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −18.8% | 13.7% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −6.1% | 37.7% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 42.0% (better) | 28.9% |
| Operating margin | 10.7% | 15.5% (better) |
| Net margin | 5.6% | 11.8% (better) |
| FCF margin | 10.4% | – |
| Return on equity | 11.6% | 17.2% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 9.0% | 15.0% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.01 | 0.20 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.00 | 0.75 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 14.6× |
| Current ratio | 2.35 | 2.98 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.95 | 9.82 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.91% | – |
| Payout ratio | 40.6% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 2 | – |
| Shareholder yield | 0.91% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 78.1% | 123% |
| Held by insiders | 27.7% | 4.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$26.3M | −$13.6M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.9% | 12.4% |
Go deeper
- CDRE stock overview
- CDRE income statement
- CDRE valuation and score
- UFPT stock overview
- UFPT income statement
- UFPT valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.