Hubbell vs Vertiv
HUBB and VRT side by side, both in electronic components and accessories. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How HUBB and VRT compare
Vertiv is the larger company, worth 3.4 times as much as Hubbell ($79.5B against $23.4B).
On earnings, Hubbell is cheaper: it trades at 26.0× trailing earnings, against 38.6× for Vertiv.
Vertiv grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (35.3% versus 16.0% for Hubbell).
Vertiv keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 16.0% compared with 13.8% at Hubbell.
Both pay dividends: Hubbell yields 1.3% and Vertiv 0.12%.
Vertiv scores higher on the StockData Score (20 against 17 for Hubbell), 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 | HUBB | VRT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $23.4B | $79.5B |
| Share price | $443.48 | $206.51 |
| Change, 1 year | −4.1% | 9.9% |
| Change, 5 years | 111% | 665% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.97 | 2.17 |
| Employees | 18K | 34K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 17 | 20 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Growth score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Health score | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 26.0× (better) | 38.6× |
| P/S | 3.6× (better) | 6.1× |
| P/B | 5.7× (better) | 14.5× |
| EV/EBITDA | 17.5× (better) | 25.8× |
| P/FCF | 25.2× (better) | 25.3× |
| PEG | 1.45 | – |
| FCF yield | 4.0% (better) | 4.0% |
| Fair value | $455.93 | $234.92 |
| Margin of safety | 2.7% | 12.1% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 16.0% | 35.3% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 9.7% | 18.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 5.6% | 103% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 6.5% | 102% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 20.8% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 35.4% | 38.1% (better) |
| Operating margin | 20.2% (better) | 20.1% |
| Net margin | 13.8% | 16.0% (better) |
| FCF margin | 14.1% | 24.0% (better) |
| Return on equity | 23.3% | 46.6% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 15.1% | 42.8% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.25 | 0.53 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.95 (better) | −0.19 |
| Interest coverage | – | 73.2× |
| Current ratio | 1.53 (better) | 1.39 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.84 | 5.39 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.3% (better) | 0.12% |
| Payout ratio | – | 4.6% |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 7.7% | – |
| Buyback yield | 0.87% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 2.1% (better) | 0.12% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 96.7% | 81.9% |
| Held by insiders | 0.41% | 1.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$18.3M (better) | −$127M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 3 |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.0% | 2.9% |
Go deeper
- HUBB stock overview
- HUBB income statement
- HUBB valuation and score
- VRT stock overview
- VRT income statement
- VRT valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.