NetApp vs Western Digital
NTAP and WDC side by side, both in computer and office equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How NTAP and WDC compare
Western Digital is the larger company, worth 3.3 times as much as NetApp ($116B against $35.6B).
On earnings, Western Digital is cheaper: it trades at 12.1× trailing earnings, against 25.5× for NetApp.
Western Digital grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (43.0% versus 12.7% for NetApp).
Western Digital keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 69.2% compared with 21.8% at NetApp.
Both pay dividends: NetApp yields 1.1% and Western Digital 0.18%.
Western Digital scores higher on the StockData Score (23 against 18 for NetApp), 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 | NTAP | WDC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $35.6B | $116B |
| Share price | $181.37 | $311.21 |
| Change, 1 year | 62.6% | 83.1% |
| Change, 5 years | 111% | 456% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.23 | 1.93 |
| Employees | 12K | 40K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 18 | 23 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 4 | 4 |
| Performance score | 6 | 6 |
| Health score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 25.5× | 12.1× (better) |
| P/S | 5.5× (better) | 8.0× |
| P/B | 23.8× | 12.5× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 17.2× (better) | 19.0× |
| P/FCF | 21.6× (better) | 27.2× |
| PEG | 8.17 | – |
| FCF yield | 4.6% (better) | 3.7% |
| Fair value | $150.67 | $409.63 |
| Margin of safety | −20.4% | 24.0% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 12.7% | 43.0% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 1.7% (better) | −5.3% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 21.1% | 289% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 25.4% | 275% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 14.5% | 55.6% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 80.3% (better) | 52.6% |
| Operating margin | 28.5% | 39.4% (better) |
| Net margin | 21.8% | 69.2% (better) |
| FCF margin | 25.4% | 29.6% (better) |
| Return on equity | 115% | 132% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 528% (better) | 62.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.66 | 0.08 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.54 | −0.09 |
| Interest coverage | – | 48.8× |
| Current ratio | 1.24 | 1.43 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.56 | 17.69 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.1% (better) | 0.18% |
| Payout ratio | 29.0% | 2.0% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 1.6% | – |
| Buyback yield | 2.4% | 2.6% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 3.5% (better) | 2.8% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 99.0% | 86.4% |
| Held by insiders | 0.44% | 0.75% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$46.4M (better) | −$71.7M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.4% | 5.2% |
Go deeper
- NTAP stock overview
- NTAP income statement
- NTAP valuation and score
- WDC stock overview
- WDC income statement
- WDC valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.