Custom Truck One Source vs PROG
CTOS and PRG side by side, both in miscellaneous equipment rental and leasing. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CTOS and PRG compare
Custom Truck One Source is the larger company, worth 1.5 times as much as PROG ($2.3B against $1.5B).
On earnings, PROG is cheaper: it trades at 10.3× trailing earnings, against 76.9× for Custom Truck One Source.
PROG grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (15.4% versus 5.8% for Custom Truck One Source).
PROG keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 5.5% compared with 1.4% at Custom Truck One Source.
PROG pays a dividend yielding 1.4%; Custom Truck One Source does not pay one.
PROG scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 5 for Custom Truck One Source), 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 | CTOS | PRG |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $2.3B | $1.5B |
| Share price | $10.00 | $38.38 |
| Change, 1 year | 66.9% | 36.0% |
| Change, 5 years | 18.2% | −19.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.37 | 1.35 |
| Employees | 2,500 | – |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 5 | 16 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 1 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 76.9× | 10.3× (better) |
| P/S | 1.1× | 0.5× (better) |
| P/B | 2.8× | 1.9× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.8× | 5.0× (better) |
| P/FCF | – | 4.7× |
| PEG | – | 0.44 |
| FCF yield | – | 21.1% |
| Fair value | $6.16 | $55.26 |
| Margin of safety | −62.3% | 30.5% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.8% | 15.4% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 45.1% (better) | −0.61% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | −8.0% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | −6.1% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 22.6% | – |
| Operating margin | 8.2% | 8.5% (better) |
| Net margin | 1.4% | 5.5% (better) |
| FCF margin | – | 11.4% |
| Return on equity | 3.7% | 20.0% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 6.9% | 30.5% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 2.01 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.70 | – |
| Interest coverage | – | 3.5× |
| Current ratio | 1.28 | – |
| Altman Z-score | 1.07 | 3.59 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 1.4% |
| Payout ratio | – | 14.5% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 1 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 25.8% |
| Buyback yield | 0.00% | 3.1% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 4.6% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 98.3% | 108% |
| Held by insiders | 73.8% | 3.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | – | −$183K |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.9% | 9.4% |
Go deeper
- CTOS stock overview
- CTOS income statement
- CTOS valuation and score
- PRG stock overview
- PRG income statement
- PRG valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.