Marten Transport vs Universal Logistics
MRTN and ULH side by side, both in trucking and courier services, except air. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How MRTN and ULH compare
Marten Transport is the larger company, worth 1.3 times as much as Universal Logistics ($982M against $770M).
On earnings, Universal Logistics is cheaper: it trades at 17.3× trailing earnings, against 66.8× for Marten Transport.
Marten Transport grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (−4.8% versus −6.8% for Universal Logistics).
Universal Logistics keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 2.9% compared with 1.5% at Marten Transport.
Both pay dividends: Marten Transport yields 2.0% and Universal Logistics 1.4%.
Universal Logistics scores higher on the StockData Score (12 against 8 for Marten Transport), 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 | MRTN | ULH |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $982M | $770M |
| Share price | $12.02 | $29.20 |
| Change, 1 year | 22.3% | 89.3% |
| Change, 5 years | −29.3% | 45.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.63 | 1.12 |
| Employees | 3,502 | 11K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 | 12 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 0 | 0 |
| Performance score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 66.8× | 17.3× (better) |
| P/S | 1.1× | 0.5× (better) |
| P/B | 1.3× (better) | 1.3× |
| EV/EBITDA | 55.1× | 6.0× (better) |
| P/FCF | – | 10.6× |
| FCF yield | – | 9.4% |
| Fair value | $8.14 | $39.90 |
| Margin of safety | −47.6% | 26.8% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −4.8% (better) | −6.8% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 0.21% | 2.3% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −31.2% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −25.0% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −24.2% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 1.9% | 6.6% (better) |
| Net margin | 1.5% | 2.9% (better) |
| FCF margin | – | 4.7% |
| Return on equity | 1.7% | 8.0% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 1.7% | 5.7% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 1.18 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 2.76 |
| Interest coverage | – | 2.0× |
| Current ratio | 2.21 (better) | 1.25 |
| Altman Z-score | 5.22 (better) | 2.03 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.0% (better) | 1.4% |
| Payout ratio | 147% | 24.8% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | −17.6% | 32.0% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 2.0% (better) | 1.4% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 74.9% | 28.0% |
| Held by insiders | 23.0% | 74.6% |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.2% | 4.5% |
Go deeper
- MRTN stock overview
- MRTN income statement
- MRTN valuation and score
- ULH stock overview
- ULH income statement
- ULH valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.