Comfort Systems USA vs Quanta Services
FIX and PWR side by side, both in construction special trade contractors. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How FIX and PWR compare
Quanta Services is the larger company, worth 2.3 times as much as Comfort Systems USA ($91.6B against $40.6B).
On earnings, Comfort Systems USA is cheaper: it trades at 25.1× trailing earnings, against 55.1× for Quanta Services.
Comfort Systems USA grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (50.7% versus 37.1% for Quanta Services).
Comfort Systems USA keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 13.0% compared with 4.5% at Quanta Services.
Both pay dividends: Comfort Systems USA yields 0.26% and Quanta Services 0.07%.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | FIX | PWR |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $40.6B | $91.6B |
| Share price | $1161.63 | $607.94 |
| Change, 1 year | 19.2% | 35.0% |
| Change, 5 years | 1041% | 402% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.45 | 1.14 |
| Employees | 23K | 70K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 19 | 19 |
| Valuation score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Performance score | 5 | 5 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Dividend score | 4 | 4 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 25.1× (better) | 55.1× |
| P/S | 3.2× | 2.5× (better) |
| P/B | 12.2× | 8.7× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 38.9× | 37.9× (better) |
| P/FCF | 16.6× (better) | 29.0× |
| PEG | 0.41 (better) | 2.04 |
| FCF yield | 6.0% (better) | 3.4% |
| Fair value | $801.15 | $392.17 |
| Margin of safety | −45.0% (better) | −55.0% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 50.7% (better) | 37.1% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −8.5% | 20.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 94.8% (better) | 65.2% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 96.1% (better) | 63.6% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 47.8% (better) | 17.2% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 11.3% | 15.8% (better) |
| Operating margin | 7.9% (better) | 6.8% |
| Net margin | 13.0% (better) | 4.5% |
| FCF margin | 19.5% (better) | 8.5% |
| Return on equity | 58.6% (better) | 17.8% |
| Return on invested capital | 38.9% (better) | 13.6% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.01 (better) | 0.66 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −2.13 | 1.84 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 125× (better) | 8.3× |
| Current ratio | 1.15 | 1.16 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 6.03 (better) | 4.30 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.26% (better) | 0.07% |
| Payout ratio | 6.5% | 3.9% |
| Years of dividend growth | 13 (better) | 8 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 35.6% (better) | 14.3% |
| Buyback yield | 1.1% (better) | 0.00% |
| Shareholder yield | 1.3% (better) | 0.07% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 93.3% | 88.7% |
| Held by insiders | 1.1% | 0.65% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$165M | −$123M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.5% | 2.3% |
Go deeper
- FIX stock overview
- FIX income statement
- FIX valuation and score
- PWR stock overview
- PWR income statement
- PWR valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.