Granite Construction vs KBR
GVA and KBR side by side, both in heavy construction other than building construction contractors. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How GVA and KBR compare
Granite Construction is the larger company, worth 1.2 times as much as KBR ($5.5B against $4.5B).
Granite Construction grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (25.1% versus −2.4% for KBR).
KBR keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 5.7% compared with −5.0% at Granite Construction.
Both pay dividends: Granite Construction yields 0.42% and KBR 1.9%.
KBR scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 11 for Granite Construction), 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 | GVA | KBR |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $5.5B | $4.5B |
| Share price | $124.52 | $35.59 |
| Change, 1 year | 21.5% | −16.3% |
| Change, 5 years | 193% | −22.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.98 | 0.67 |
| Employees | 2,500 | 36K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 11 | 17 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 10.2× |
| P/S | 1.0× | 0.6× (better) |
| P/B | 5.8× | 2.5× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 11.4× | 7.4× (better) |
| P/FCF | 12.4× (better) | 13.7× |
| PEG | – | 0.28 |
| FCF yield | 8.1% (better) | 7.3% |
| Fair value | $119.54 | $76.83 |
| Margin of safety | −4.2% | 53.7% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 25.1% (better) | −2.4% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.4% | 6.2% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −245% | 16.3% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −284% | 19.9% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 16.1% (better) | 14.7% |
| Operating margin | 7.5% | 9.3% (better) |
| Net margin | −5.0% | 5.7% (better) |
| FCF margin | 8.4% (better) | 4.2% |
| Return on equity | −25.2% | 27.4% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 15.9% (better) | 15.1% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.64 | 1.44 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.80 (better) | 2.35 |
| Interest coverage | 1.1× | 5.0× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.11 (better) | 0.94 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.62 (better) | 2.34 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.42% | 1.9% (better) |
| Payout ratio | – | 19.0% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 0.00% | 10.5% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 1.5% (better) | 1.2% |
| Shareholder yield | 1.9% | 3.1% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 112% | 104% |
| Held by insiders | 0.80% | 1.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$8.6M | $945K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 8.8% | 8.0% |
Go deeper
- GVA stock overview
- GVA income statement
- GVA valuation and score
- KBR stock overview
- KBR income statement
- KBR valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.