Medpace vs UL Solutions
MEDP and ULS side by side, both in engineering, accounting, research, management, and related services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How MEDP and ULS compare
Medpace and UL Solutions are about the same size, with market caps of $18.3B and $16.2B.
On earnings, UL Solutions is cheaper: it trades at 32.4× trailing earnings, against 36.3× for Medpace.
Medpace grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (20.4% versus 6.6% for UL Solutions).
Medpace keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 18.2% compared with 16.1% at UL Solutions.
UL Solutions pays a dividend yielding 0.70%; Medpace does not pay one.
UL Solutions scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 14 for Medpace), 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 | MEDP | ULS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $18.3B | $16.2B |
| Share price | $653.94 | $80.36 |
| Change, 1 year | 9.4% | −7.1% |
| Change, 5 years | 188% | – |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.39 | 0.43 |
| Employees | 6,200 | 15K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 | 15 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Health score | 5 | 5 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 36.3× | 32.4× (better) |
| P/S | 6.4× | 5.2× (better) |
| P/B | 31.3× | 10.2× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 29.0× | 21.4× (better) |
| P/FCF | 27.4× (better) | 37.2× |
| PEG | 1.29 (better) | 11.31 |
| FCF yield | 3.6% (better) | 2.7% |
| Fair value | $446.74 | $61.62 |
| Margin of safety | −46.4% | −30.4% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 20.4% (better) | 6.6% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 22.3% | – |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 19.6% | 54.4% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 26.1% | 53.1% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 31.8% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 50.3% |
| Operating margin | 21.4% (better) | 17.9% |
| Net margin | 18.2% (better) | 16.1% |
| FCF margin | 23.5% (better) | 13.9% |
| Return on equity | 118% (better) | 37.6% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 28.6% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.19 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | −0.18 |
| Interest coverage | – | 17.6× |
| Current ratio | 0.83 | 1.42 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 8.13 | 8.58 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.70% |
| Payout ratio | – | 21.8% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 1 |
| Buyback yield | 1.6% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 1.6% (better) | 0.70% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 88.3% | 43.3% |
| Held by insiders | 20.0% | – |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$262M (better) | −$1.1B |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.2% | – |
Go deeper
- MEDP stock overview
- MEDP income statement
- MEDP valuation and score
- ULS stock overview
- ULS income statement
- ULS valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.