Celestica vs Jabil
CLS and JBL side by side, both in electronic components and accessories. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CLS and JBL compare
Celestica grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (61.6% versus 20.6% for Jabil).
Celestica keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 6.8% compared with 2.9% at Jabil.
Jabil pays a dividend yielding 0.13%; Celestica does not pay one.
Celestica scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 14 for Jabil), 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 | CLS | JBL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | – | $26.2B |
| Share price | $240.34 | $254.25 |
| Change, 1 year | −28.2% | 18.8% |
| Change, 5 years | 2042% | 309% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.93 | 1.34 |
| Employees | – | 30K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 (better) | 14 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Growth score | 5 | 5 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 26.1× |
| P/S | – | 0.7× |
| P/B | – | 16.2× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 11.7× |
| P/FCF | – | 19.1× |
| PEG | – | 1.50 |
| FCF yield | – | 5.2% |
| Fair value | – | $238.73 |
| Margin of safety | – | −6.5% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 61.6% (better) | 20.6% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 16.6% (better) | 4.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 73.8% (better) | 58.6% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 71.4% (better) | 64.7% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 72.4% (better) | 16.3% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 11.5% (better) | 9.2% |
| Operating margin | 8.3% (better) | 4.7% |
| Net margin | 6.8% (better) | 2.9% |
| FCF margin | 3.0% | 3.8% (better) |
| Return on equity | 30.2% | 66.7% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 46.2% (better) | 44.0% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.13 (better) | 2.09 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −1.86 | 0.69 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 21.3× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.61 (better) | 0.99 |
| Altman Z-score | – | 2.49 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.13% |
| Payout ratio | – | 3.4% |
| Buyback yield | – | 4.0% |
| Shareholder yield | – | 4.2% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 62.9% | 99.1% |
| Held by insiders | 0.73% | 2.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$254M | −$57.8M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.7% | 2.9% |
Go deeper
- CLS stock overview
- CLS income statement
- CLS valuation and score
- JBL stock overview
- JBL income statement
- JBL valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.