CoStar vs MSCI
CSGP and MSCI side by side, both in miscellaneous business services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CSGP and MSCI compare
MSCI is the larger company, worth 3.8 times as much as CoStar ($47.1B against $12.5B).
On earnings, MSCI is cheaper: it trades at 34.8× trailing earnings, against 70.4× for CoStar.
CoStar grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (20.2% versus 12.3% for MSCI).
MSCI keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 40.3% compared with 4.9% at CoStar.
MSCI pays a dividend yielding 1.2%; CoStar does not pay one.
MSCI scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 14 for CoStar), 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 | CSGP | MSCI |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $12.5B | $47.1B |
| Share price | $30.96 | $658.17 |
| Change, 1 year | −55.1% | 13.3% |
| Change, 5 years | −62.0% | 0.20% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.04 | 1.16 |
| Employees | 8,000 | 6,268 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 | 18 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 70.4× | 34.8× (better) |
| P/S | 3.4× (better) | 13.7× |
| P/B | 1.6× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 23.2× (better) | 27.6× |
| P/FCF | 29.5× (better) | 29.9× |
| PEG | – | 2.57 |
| FCF yield | 3.4% (better) | 3.3% |
| Fair value | $33.80 | $594.74 |
| Margin of safety | 8.4% (better) | −10.7% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 20.2% (better) | 12.3% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 14.4% (better) | 13.1% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 791% (better) | 13.1% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 780% (better) | 19.7% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −49.2% | 17.1% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 78.3% | 82.9% (better) |
| Operating margin | 5.8% | 55.7% (better) |
| Net margin | 4.9% | 40.3% (better) |
| FCF margin | 11.5% | 45.9% (better) |
| Return on equity | 2.2% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 2.0% | 49.1% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.12 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.89 (better) | 3.33 |
| Interest coverage | 7.3× (better) | 6.9× |
| Current ratio | 1.32 (better) | 0.82 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.74 | 6.48 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 1.2% |
| Payout ratio | – | 42.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 11 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 19.8% |
| Buyback yield | 8.5% (better) | 4.3% |
| Shareholder yield | 8.5% (better) | 5.5% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 103% | 94.4% |
| Held by insiders | 1.3% | 3.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $8.2M (better) | $7.1M |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.1% | 2.0% |
Go deeper
- CSGP stock overview
- CSGP income statement
- CSGP valuation and score
- MSCI stock overview
- MSCI income statement
- MSCI valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.