Littelfuse vs Vishay Intertechnology
LFUS and VSH side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How LFUS and VSH compare
Littelfuse is the larger company, worth 2.4 times as much as Vishay Intertechnology ($10.1B against $4.3B).
On earnings, Vishay Intertechnology is cheaper: it trades at 44.8× trailing earnings, against 405× for Littelfuse.
Littelfuse grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (18.7% versus 17.6% for Vishay Intertechnology).
Vishay Intertechnology keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 2.7% compared with 1.4% at Littelfuse.
Both pay dividends: Littelfuse yields 0.77% and Vishay Intertechnology 1.4%.
Littelfuse scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 8 for Vishay Intertechnology), 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 | LFUS | VSH |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $10.1B | $4.3B |
| Share price | $396.61 | $27.79 |
| Change, 1 year | 63.8% | 95.3% |
| Change, 5 years | 23.3% | 28.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.32 | 1.43 |
| Employees | 17K | 23K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 (better) | 8 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 405× | 44.8× (better) |
| P/S | 3.7× | 1.2× (better) |
| P/B | 3.7× | 1.4× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 65.2× | 9.3× (better) |
| P/FCF | 19.1× (better) | 36.8× |
| FCF yield | 5.2% (better) | 2.7% |
| Fair value | $142.37 | $27.54 |
| Margin of safety | −179% | −0.90% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 18.7% (better) | 17.6% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 10.5% (better) | 4.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −68.1% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −79.4% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 40.1% (better) | 22.5% |
| Operating margin | 5.5% (better) | 5.2% |
| Net margin | 1.4% | 2.7% (better) |
| FCF margin | 19.2% (better) | 3.3% |
| Return on equity | 1.4% | 3.8% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 2.9% | 4.6% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.23 (better) | 0.25 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −1.29 | −0.98 |
| Interest coverage | 5.7× (better) | 5.0× |
| Current ratio | 2.67 | 3.31 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 5.75 (better) | 2.81 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.77% | 1.4% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 203% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 7 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 8.6% (better) | 1.0% |
| Buyback yield | 0.00% (better) | −0.00% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.77% | 1.4% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 99.7% | 99.4% |
| Held by insiders | 1.3% | 1.2% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$36.1M | −$594K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.4% | 10.5% |
Go deeper
- LFUS stock overview
- LFUS income statement
- LFUS valuation and score
- VSH stock overview
- VSH income statement
- VSH valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.