AMT vs. CSGP: A Head-to-Head Stock Comparison
UpdatedHere’s a clear look at AMT and CSGP, comparing key factors like performance, valuation metrics, dividends, and financial strength. It’s built for investors or anyone curious to see how these two stocks match up.
Company Overview
AMT dominates in value with a market cap of 100.06 billion USD, eclipsing CSGP’s 31.20 billion USD by roughly 3.21×.
With betas of 0.88 for AMT and 0.89 for CSGP, both show similar volatility profiles relative to the overall market.
| Symbol | AMT | CSGP |
|---|---|---|
| Company Name | American Tower Corporation | CoStar Group, Inc. |
| Country | US | US |
| Sector | Real Estate | Real Estate |
| Industry | REIT - Specialty | Real Estate - Services |
| CEO | Mr. Steven O. Vondran J.D. | Mr. Andrew C. Florance |
| Price | 213.73 USD | 73.96 USD |
| Market Cap | 100.06 billion USD | 31.20 billion USD |
| Beta | 0.88 | 0.89 |
| Exchange | NYSE | NASDAQ |
| IPO Date | February 27, 1998 | July 1, 1998 |
| ADR | No | No |
Performance Comparison
This chart compares the performance of AMT and CSGP over the past year by tracking the growth of an initial $10,000 investment in each (starting one year ago).
Hover over the lines to see the investment’s value and total return (%) at specific dates.
Data is adjusted for dividends and splits.
Valuation Metrics Comparison
The section examines key financial ratios to assess the valuation of AMT and CSGP based on earnings, cash flow, sales, and book value. Pay attention to the following notable points where extreme values stand out.
- CSGP features a high P/E of 259.05, indicating strong growth expectations, compared to AMT at 54.73, which trades at a more standard valuation based on its current earnings.
- CSGP reports a negative Price-to-Free Cash Flow ratio of -917.73, showing a cash flow shortfall that could threaten its operational sustainability, while AMT at 26.49 maintains positive cash flow.
| Symbol | AMT | CSGP |
|---|---|---|
| Price-to-Earnings Ratio (P/E, TTM) | 54.73 | 259.05 |
| Forward PEG Ratio (TTM) | 4.87 | 7.96 |
| Price-to-Sales Ratio (P/S, TTM) | 9.50 | 11.10 |
| Price-to-Book Ratio (P/B, TTM) | 28.28 | 3.55 |
| Price-to-Free Cash Flow Ratio (P/FCF, TTM) | 26.49 | -917.73 |
| EV-to-EBITDA (TTM) | 19.11 | 172.99 |
| EV-to-Sales (TTM) | 13.51 | 10.19 |
| EV-to-Free Cash Flow (TTM) | 37.68 | -843.05 |
Dividend Comparison
AMT delivers a 3.07% dividend yield, blending income with growth, whereas CSGP appears to retain its profits, possibly to fund operations, R&D, or other growth initiatives.
| Symbol | AMT | CSGP |
|---|---|---|
| Dividend Yield (TTM) | 3.07% | 0.00% |
Financial Strength Metrics Comparison
This section dives into the financial resilience of AMT and CSGP, spotlighting key metrics like liquidity, leverage, and debt coverage. Check out the standout observations below where notable differences or extremes pop up.
- AMT’s current ratio of 0.55 signals a possible liquidity squeeze, while CSGP at 6.01 comfortably covers its short-term obligations.
- AMT’s quick ratio of 0.55 suggests it may struggle to cover immediate liabilities without selling inventory or raising cash, whereas CSGP at 6.01 maintains a comfortable buffer of liquid assets.
- AMT is heavily leveraged (debt-to-equity ratio 12.56), which can boost returns but raises risk if borrowing costs climb, while CSGP at 0.13 keeps leverage at a more moderate level.
- AMT (at 3.51) covers its interest payments, while CSGP shows “--” for minimal debt service.
| Symbol | AMT | CSGP |
|---|---|---|
| Current Ratio (TTM) | 0.55 | 6.01 |
| Quick Ratio (TTM) | 0.55 | 6.01 |
| Debt-to-Equity Ratio (TTM) | 12.56 | 0.13 |
| Debt-to-Assets Ratio (TTM) | 0.72 | 0.11 |
| Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM) | 3.51 | -- |