Leonardo DRS vs Sensata Technologies
DRS and ST side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How DRS and ST compare
Leonardo DRS is the larger company, worth 1.7 times as much as Sensata Technologies ($9.8B against $5.9B).
On earnings, Sensata Technologies is cheaper: it trades at 16.1× trailing earnings, against 26.9× for Leonardo DRS.
Leonardo DRS grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (8.9% versus 4.1% for Sensata Technologies).
Sensata Technologies keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 9.5% compared with 9.4% at Leonardo DRS.
Both pay dividends: Leonardo DRS yields 1.2% and Sensata Technologies 1.2%.
Leonardo DRS scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 16 for Sensata Technologies), 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 | ST |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $9.8B | $5.9B |
| Share price | $36.64 | $40.31 |
| Change, 1 year | 2.9% | 29.0% |
| Change, 5 years | 260% | −32.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.81 | 1.21 |
| Employees | 7,300 | 21K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 18 (better) | 16 |
| Valuation score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 26.9× | 16.1× (better) |
| P/S | 2.5× | 1.5× (better) |
| P/B | 3.4× | 1.9× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 18.5× | 9.6× (better) |
| P/FCF | 28.4× | 9.2× (better) |
| FCF yield | 3.5% | 10.9% (better) |
| Fair value | $40.55 | $73.46 |
| Margin of safety | 9.6% | 45.1% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 8.9% (better) | 4.1% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 5.6% (better) | 4.0% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 37.7% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 38.8% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 20.8% (better) | −27.4% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 25.3% | 30.8% (better) |
| Operating margin | 10.8% | 15.1% (better) |
| Net margin | 9.4% | 9.5% (better) |
| FCF margin | 8.9% | 16.7% (better) |
| Return on equity | 13.2% (better) | 12.7% |
| Return on invested capital | 13.5% (better) | 8.9% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.06 (better) | 0.78 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.23 | 2.30 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 4.4× |
| Current ratio | 1.88 | 2.39 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 4.78 (better) | 2.58 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.2% (better) | 1.2% |
| Payout ratio | – | 19.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | – |
| Buyback yield | 0.32% | 0.43% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 1.5% | 1.6% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 26.6% | 106% |
| Held by insiders | 0.31% | 1.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$8.6M | −$216K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.5% | 5.1% |
Go deeper
- DRS stock overview
- DRS income statement
- DRS valuation and score
- ST stock overview
- ST income statement
- ST valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.