Everforth vs Kforce
EFOR and KFRC side by side, both in personnel supply services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How EFOR and KFRC compare
Everforth is the larger company, worth 1.5 times as much as Kforce ($1.5B against $1.0B).
On earnings, Everforth is cheaper: it trades at 21.8× trailing earnings, against 23.4× for Kforce.
Kforce grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (2.1% versus 0.04% for Everforth).
Kforce keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 3.0% compared with 1.7% at Everforth.
Kforce pays a dividend yielding 2.8%; Everforth does not pay one.
Kforce scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 8 for Everforth), 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 | EFOR | KFRC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.5B | $1.0B |
| Share price | $35.55 | $55.85 |
| Change, 1 year | −21.8% | 80.0% |
| Change, 5 years | −71.7% | −29.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.96 | 0.75 |
| Employees | 3,320 | 1,600 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 | 17 (better) |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 21.8× (better) | 23.4× |
| P/S | 0.4× (better) | 0.7× |
| P/B | 0.8× (better) | 7.3× |
| EV/EBITDA | 4.4× (better) | 14.9× |
| P/FCF | 7.5× (better) | 116× |
| FCF yield | 13.4% (better) | 0.86% |
| Fair value | $59.07 | $45.53 |
| Margin of safety | 39.8% (better) | −22.7% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 0.04% | 2.1% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 2.6% (better) | −1.0% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −48.0% | 0.33% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −44.9% | 5.8% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −7.1% | −5.6% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 28.3% (better) | 27.8% |
| Operating margin | 4.6% (better) | 4.5% |
| Net margin | 1.7% | 3.0% (better) |
| FCF margin | 4.9% (better) | 0.63% |
| Return on equity | 3.7% | 30.5% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 6.8% | 32.4% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.00 |
| Interest coverage | 2.4× | – |
| Current ratio | 2.13 (better) | 1.95 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.08 | 7.88 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 2.8% |
| Payout ratio | – | 65.9% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 8 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 14.3% |
| Buyback yield | 7.9% (better) | 2.5% |
| Shareholder yield | 7.9% (better) | 5.3% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 105% | 95.7% |
| Held by insiders | 3.1% | 7.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $1.9M (better) | −$578K |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 8.5% | 8.7% |
Go deeper
- EFOR stock overview
- EFOR income statement
- EFOR valuation and score
- KFRC stock overview
- KFRC income statement
- KFRC valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.