Leonardo DRS vs Garmin
DRS and GRMN side by side, both in measuring, analyzing, and controlling instruments; photographic, medical and optical goods; watches and clocks. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How DRS and GRMN compare
Garmin is the larger company, worth 5.8 times as much as Leonardo DRS ($54.5B against $9.4B).
On earnings, Leonardo DRS is cheaper: it trades at 25.9× trailing earnings, against 27.2× for Garmin.
Garmin grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (13.6% versus 8.9% for Leonardo DRS).
Garmin keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 25.6% compared with 9.4% at Leonardo DRS.
Both pay dividends: Leonardo DRS yields 1.3% and Garmin 1.4%.
Garmin scores higher on the StockData Score (22 against 18 for Leonardo DRS), 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 | DRS | GRMN |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $9.4B | $54.5B |
| Share price | $35.18 | $283.03 |
| Change, 1 year | −0.79% | 42.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 246% | 98.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.81 | 0.96 |
| Employees | 7,300 | 6,500 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 18 | 22 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Performance score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 25.9× (better) | 27.2× |
| P/S | 2.4× (better) | 6.9× |
| P/B | 3.2× (better) | 5.7× |
| EV/EBITDA | 17.7× (better) | 23.0× |
| P/FCF | 27.3× (better) | 37.2× |
| PEG | – | 1.40 |
| FCF yield | 3.7% (better) | 2.7% |
| Fair value | $40.11 | $255.38 |
| Margin of safety | 12.3% (better) | −10.8% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 8.9% | 13.6% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 5.6% | 11.6% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 37.7% (better) | 28.4% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 38.8% (better) | 28.5% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 20.8% (better) | 10.7% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 25.3% | 61.1% (better) |
| Operating margin | 10.8% | 28.8% (better) |
| Net margin | 9.4% | 25.6% (better) |
| FCF margin | 8.9% | 18.6% (better) |
| Return on equity | 13.2% | 22.4% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 13.5% | 28.8% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.06 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.23 | – |
| Current ratio | 1.88 | 3.05 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 4.62 | 16.00 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.3% | 1.4% (better) |
| Payout ratio | – | 37.2% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | – |
| Buyback yield | 0.33% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 1.6% (better) | 1.4% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 26.6% | 57.1% |
| Held by insiders | 0.31% | 17.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$8.6M (better) | −$20.0M |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.5% | 2.0% |
Go deeper
- DRS stock overview
- DRS income statement
- DRS valuation and score
- GRMN stock overview
- GRMN income statement
- GRMN valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.