Crane NXT vs Viavi Solutions
CXT and VIAV side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CXT and VIAV compare
Viavi Solutions is the larger company, worth 2.3 times as much as Crane NXT ($7.6B against $3.3B).
On earnings, Crane NXT is cheaper: it trades at 25.8× trailing earnings, against 123× for Viavi Solutions.
Viavi Solutions grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (47.4% versus 17.5% for Crane NXT).
Crane NXT keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 6.9% compared with 4.0% at Viavi Solutions.
Crane NXT pays a dividend yielding 1.2%; Viavi Solutions does not pay one.
Crane NXT scores higher on the StockData Score (12 against 11 for Viavi Solutions), 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 | CXT | VIAV |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.3B | $7.6B |
| Share price | $56.92 | $30.72 |
| Change, 1 year | −7.8% | 72.5% |
| Change, 5 years | −45.1% | 97.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.96 | 1.17 |
| Employees | 2,200 | 4,100 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 12 (better) | 11 |
| Valuation score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 4 | 4 |
| Dividend score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 25.8× (better) | 123× |
| P/S | 1.8× (better) | 4.5× |
| P/B | 2.5× (better) | 5.7× |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.7× (better) | 40.7× |
| P/FCF | – | 49.5× |
| FCF yield | – | 2.0% |
| Fair value | $55.08 | $16.17 |
| Margin of safety | −3.3% (better) | −90.0% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 17.5% | 47.4% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −10.8% | 4.8% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −17.1% | 341% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −17.5% | 257% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −4.1% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 41.2% | 58.9% (better) |
| Operating margin | 12.7% (better) | 10.6% |
| Net margin | 6.9% (better) | 4.0% |
| FCF margin | – | 9.1% |
| Return on equity | 10.2% (better) | 6.5% |
| Return on invested capital | 15.1% | 16.2% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.18 (better) | 0.19 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.05 | −1.58 |
| Interest coverage | – | 3.9× |
| Current ratio | 1.31 | 1.65 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.86 (better) | −33.04 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.2% | – |
| Payout ratio | 31.9% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 2 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | −16.9% | – |
| Buyback yield | – | 2.0% |
| Shareholder yield | 1.2% | 2.0% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 107% | 97.5% |
| Held by insiders | 0.23% | 1.2% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $1.2M (better) | −$57.4M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 15.7% | 4.8% |
Go deeper
- CXT stock overview
- CXT income statement
- CXT valuation and score
- VIAV stock overview
- VIAV income statement
- VIAV valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.