CoStar vs RB Global
CSGP and RBA 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 RBA compare
RB Global is the larger company, worth 1.4 times as much as CoStar ($17.6B against $12.5B).
On earnings, RB Global is cheaper: it trades at 36.6× trailing earnings, against 70.4× for CoStar.
CoStar grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (20.2% versus 11.1% for RB Global).
RB Global keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 10.5% compared with 4.9% at CoStar.
RB Global pays a dividend yielding 0.67%; CoStar does not pay one.
CoStar scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 13 for RB Global), 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 | RBA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $12.5B | $17.6B |
| Share price | $30.96 | $95.15 |
| Change, 1 year | −55.1% | −6.7% |
| Change, 5 years | −62.0% | 30.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.04 | 0.51 |
| Employees | 8,000 | 8,000 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 (better) | 13 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 70.4× | 36.6× (better) |
| P/S | 3.4× (better) | 3.5× |
| P/B | 1.6× (better) | 3.3× |
| EV/EBITDA | 23.2× | 15.0× (better) |
| P/FCF | 29.5× | 28.5× (better) |
| FCF yield | 3.4% | 3.5% (better) |
| Fair value | $33.80 | $92.41 |
| Margin of safety | 8.4% (better) | −3.0% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 20.2% (better) | 11.1% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 14.4% | 27.2% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 791% (better) | 21.0% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 780% (better) | 24.4% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −49.2% | 5.8% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 78.3% | – |
| Operating margin | 5.8% | 16.6% (better) |
| Net margin | 4.9% | 10.5% (better) |
| FCF margin | 11.5% | 12.3% (better) |
| Return on equity | 2.2% | 9.8% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 2.0% | 8.5% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.12 (better) | 0.60 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.89 (better) | 1.97 |
| Interest coverage | 7.3× (better) | 4.6× |
| Current ratio | 1.32 (better) | 1.31 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.74 (better) | 2.41 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.67% |
| Buyback yield | 8.5% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 8.5% (better) | 0.67% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 103% | 98.3% |
| Held by insiders | 1.3% | 0.26% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $8.2M (better) | −$2.2M |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.1% | 9.9% |
Go deeper
- CSGP stock overview
- CSGP income statement
- CSGP valuation and score
- RBA stock overview
- RBA income statement
- RBA valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.