FactSet Research Systems vs Tempus AI
FDS and TEM side by side, both in computer programming, data processing, and other computer related services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How FDS and TEM compare
FactSet Research Systems is the larger company, worth 825 times as much as Tempus AI ($11.8B against $14.3M).
Tempus AI grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (36.6% versus 6.7% for FactSet Research Systems).
FactSet Research Systems keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 21.5% compared with −12.5% at Tempus AI.
FactSet Research Systems pays a dividend yielding 1.3%; Tempus AI does not pay one.
FactSet Research Systems scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 8 for Tempus AI), 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 | FDS | TEM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $11.8B | $14.3M |
| Share price | $334.88 | $79.43 |
| Change, 1 year | 26.3% | 10.7% |
| Change, 5 years | −27.4% | – |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.75 | 2.84 |
| Employees | 13K | 3,800 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 17 (better) | 8 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 23.0× | – |
| P/S | 4.8× | 0.0× (better) |
| P/B | 5.9× | 0.0× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.7× | – |
| P/FCF | 16.7× | – |
| PEG | 3.50 | – |
| FCF yield | 6.0% (better) | −956% |
| Fair value | $426.35 | $11380.60 |
| Margin of safety | 21.5% | 99.3% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.7% | 36.6% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 9.2% | – |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −10.6% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −6.3% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 7.1% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 50.6% | – |
| Operating margin | 28.3% (better) | −18.5% |
| Net margin | 21.5% (better) | −12.5% |
| FCF margin | 28.6% (better) | −9.1% |
| Return on equity | 25.5% (better) | −37.5% |
| Return on invested capital | 18.2% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.68 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.25 | – |
| Interest coverage | 12.8× (better) | −6.0× |
| Current ratio | 0.60 | 2.61 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 5.25 (better) | −0.86 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.3% | – |
| Payout ratio | 30.8% | – |
| Buyback yield | 5.5% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 6.8% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 114% | 61.3% |
| Held by insiders | 0.47% | 34.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$1.5M (better) | −$180M |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 11.0% | 20.7% |
Go deeper
- FDS stock overview
- FDS income statement
- FDS valuation and score
- TEM stock overview
- TEM income statement
- TEM valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.