Otis Worldwide vs Vertiv
OTIS and VRT side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How OTIS and VRT compare
Vertiv is the larger company, worth 2.7 times as much as Otis Worldwide ($79.5B against $29.5B).
On earnings, Otis Worldwide is cheaper: it trades at 19.3× trailing earnings, against 38.6× for Vertiv.
Vertiv grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (35.3% versus 5.8% for Otis Worldwide).
Vertiv keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 16.0% compared with 10.3% at Otis Worldwide.
Both pay dividends: Otis Worldwide yields 2.2% and Vertiv 0.12%.
Vertiv scores higher on the StockData Score (20 against 17 for Otis Worldwide), 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 | OTIS | VRT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $29.5B | $79.5B |
| Share price | $77.50 | $206.51 |
| Change, 1 year | −14.1% | 9.9% |
| Change, 5 years | −10.2% | 665% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.73 | 2.17 |
| Employees | 72K | 34K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 17 | 20 (better) |
| Valuation score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Growth score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 19.3× (better) | 38.6× |
| P/S | 1.9× (better) | 6.1× |
| P/B | – | 14.5× |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.9× (better) | 25.8× |
| P/FCF | 17.6× (better) | 25.3× |
| PEG | 3.36 | – |
| FCF yield | 5.7% (better) | 4.0% |
| Fair value | $102.27 | $234.92 |
| Margin of safety | 24.2% (better) | 12.1% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.8% | 35.3% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 2.5% | 18.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 15.5% | 103% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 18.6% | 102% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 11.0% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 38.1% |
| Operating margin | 15.3% | 20.1% (better) |
| Net margin | 10.3% | 16.0% (better) |
| FCF margin | 11.1% | 24.0% (better) |
| Return on equity | – | 46.6% |
| Return on invested capital | 93.6% (better) | 42.8% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.53 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.97 (better) | −0.19 |
| Interest coverage | 9.6× | 73.2× (better) |
| Current ratio | 0.86 | 1.39 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.99 | 5.39 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.2% (better) | 0.12% |
| Payout ratio | 42.5% | 4.6% |
| Years of dividend growth | 6 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 22.4% | – |
| Buyback yield | 2.7% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 5.0% (better) | 0.12% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 93.8% | 81.9% |
| Held by insiders | 0.14% | 1.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$17.1M (better) | −$127M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.3% | 2.9% |
Go deeper
- OTIS stock overview
- OTIS income statement
- OTIS 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.