Diebold Nixdorf vs Jbt Marel
DBD and JBTM side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How DBD and JBTM compare
Jbt Marel is the larger company, worth 3.4 times as much as Diebold Nixdorf ($6.6B against $1.9B).
On earnings, Diebold Nixdorf is cheaper: it trades at 26.7× trailing earnings, against 34.4× for Jbt Marel.
Jbt Marel grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (44.9% versus 6.3% for Diebold Nixdorf).
Jbt Marel keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 4.9% compared with 2.0% at Diebold Nixdorf.
Jbt Marel pays a dividend yielding 0.32%; Diebold Nixdorf does not pay one.
Jbt Marel scores higher on the StockData Score (12 against 8 for Diebold Nixdorf), 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 | DBD | JBTM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.9B | $6.6B |
| Share price | $57.04 | $126.56 |
| Change, 1 year | −12.2% | −11.0% |
| Change, 5 years | – | −27.1% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.99 | 0.95 |
| Employees | 20K | 12K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 | 12 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 26.7× (better) | 34.4× |
| P/S | 0.5× (better) | 1.7× |
| P/B | 2.0× | 1.5× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.0× (better) | 28.2× |
| P/FCF | – | 21.2× |
| FCF yield | – | 4.7% |
| Fair value | $91.07 | $119.74 |
| Margin of safety | 37.4% (better) | −5.7% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.3% | 44.9% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −0.50% | 17.1% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 51.6% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 56.2% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 25.0% | 35.6% (better) |
| Operating margin | 5.4% | 7.3% (better) |
| Net margin | 2.0% | 4.9% (better) |
| FCF margin | – | 7.9% |
| Return on equity | 7.5% (better) | 4.3% |
| Return on invested capital | 8.1% (better) | 3.8% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.01 | 0.38 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.28 (better) | 5.46 |
| Interest coverage | 2.2× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.27 (better) | 1.24 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.84 | 2.04 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.32% |
| Payout ratio | – | 10.9% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 0.00% |
| Buyback yield | 10.8% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 10.8% (better) | 0.32% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 116% | 103% |
| Held by insiders | 58.9% | 1.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$126M | −$4.3M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 23.0% | 8.0% |
Go deeper
- DBD stock overview
- DBD income statement
- DBD valuation and score
- JBTM stock overview
- JBTM income statement
- JBTM valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.