AMT vs. IRM: A Head-to-Head Stock Comparison

Company Overview

AMT dominates in value with a market cap of 100.06 billion USD, eclipsing IRM’s 28.36 billion USD by roughly 3.53×.

With betas of 0.88 for AMT and 1.10 for IRM, both show similar volatility profiles relative to the overall market.

Performance Comparison

This chart compares the performance of AMT and IRM 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 IRM based on earnings, cash flow, sales, and book value. Pay attention to the following notable points where extreme values stand out.

• IRM features a high P/E of 231.94, indicating strong growth expectations, compared to AMT at 54.73, which trades at a more standard valuation based on its current earnings.
• IRM shows a negative forward PEG of -2.32, signaling expected earnings contraction, while AMT at 4.87 maintains analysts’ projections for stable or improved profits.
• IRM carries a sub-zero price-to-book ratio of -40.53, indicating negative equity. In contrast, AMT (P/B 28.28) has positive book value.
• IRM reports a negative Price-to-Free Cash Flow ratio of -33.36, showing a cash flow shortfall that could threaten its operational sustainability, while AMT at 26.49 maintains positive cash flow.

Dividend Comparison

Both AMT and IRM offer similar dividend yields (3.07% vs. 2.98%), indicating comparable approaches to balancing income and growth.

Financial Strength Metrics Comparison

This section dives into the financial resilience of AMT and IRM, spotlighting key metrics like liquidity, leverage, and debt coverage. Check out the standout observations below where notable differences or extremes pop up.

• With current ratios of 0.55 and 0.62, both AMT and IRM have less current assets than short-term liabilities, which could strain their working capital and force reliance on additional financing.
• Both AMT (quick ratio 0.55) and IRM (quick ratio 0.62) fall below 0.8, meaning their most liquid assets—excluding inventory—aren’t enough to meet short-term obligations. This could force them to rely on receivables, inventory turn, or external financing.
• AMT carries high leverage (debt-to-equity ratio 12.56), whereas IRM has negative equity (-24.54), each presenting distinct capital-structure concerns.
• IRM carries a debt-to-assets ratio of 0.89, suggesting substantial asset funding via debt, while AMT at 0.72 opts for a more conservative financing structure.