Seek Returns logo

APH vs. UBER: A Head-to-Head Stock Comparison

Updated on

Here’s a clear look at APH and UBER, comparing key factors like historical performance, profitability, financial strength, growth, dividend, and valuation.

Company Profile

SymbolAPHUBER
Company NameAmphenol CorporationUber Technologies, Inc.
CountryUnited StatesUnited States
GICS SectorInformation TechnologyIndustrials
GICS IndustryElectronic Equipment, Instruments & ComponentsGround Transportation
Market Capitalization149.22 billion USD201.45 billion USD
ExchangeNYSENYSE
Listing DateNovember 8, 1991May 10, 2019
Security TypeCommon StockCommon Stock

Historical Performance

This chart compares the performance of APH and UBER by tracking the growth of an initial $10,000 investment in each. Use the tabs to select the desired time period. Data is adjusted for dividends and splits.

APH vs. UBER: Growth of a $10,000 investment over the past one year.

Historical Performance at a Glance

SymbolAPHUBER
5-Day Price Return1.00%-2.98%
13-Week Price Return22.88%3.17%
26-Week Price Return86.34%32.58%
52-Week Price Return96.68%32.56%
Month-to-Date Return-1.24%-1.40%
Year-to-Date Return75.98%60.15%
10-Day Avg. Volume8.30M15.54M
3-Month Avg. Volume8.79M18.92M
3-Month Volatility24.57%27.87%
Beta1.201.20

Profitability

Return on Equity (TTM)

APH

30.97%

Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components Industry

Max
21.57%
Q3
13.27%
Median
8.55%
Q1
4.42%
Min
-4.21%

APH’s Return on Equity of 30.97% is exceptionally high, placing it well beyond the typical range for the Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components industry. This demonstrates a superior ability to generate profit from shareholder investments, though it could also be inflated by high financial leverage.

UBER

62.42%

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
23.35%
Q3
13.74%
Median
9.05%
Q1
6.86%
Min
1.73%

UBER’s Return on Equity of 62.42% is exceptionally high, placing it well beyond the typical range for the Ground Transportation industry. This demonstrates a superior ability to generate profit from shareholder investments, though it could also be inflated by high financial leverage.

APH vs. UBER: A comparison of their Return on Equity (TTM) against their respective Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components and Ground Transportation industry benchmarks.

Net Profit Margin (TTM)

APH

16.90%

Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components Industry

Max
17.31%
Q3
10.85%
Median
7.26%
Q1
3.13%
Min
-3.00%

A Net Profit Margin of 16.90% places APH in the upper quartile for the Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components industry, signifying strong profitability and more effective cost management than most of its peers.

UBER

26.68%

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
32.19%
Q3
17.08%
Median
7.19%
Q1
4.45%
Min
-5.54%

A Net Profit Margin of 26.68% places UBER in the upper quartile for the Ground Transportation industry, signifying strong profitability and more effective cost management than most of its peers.

APH vs. UBER: A comparison of their Net Profit Margin (TTM) against their respective Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components and Ground Transportation industry benchmarks.

Operating Profit Margin (TTM)

APH

22.41%

Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components Industry

Max
30.04%
Q3
15.08%
Median
9.55%
Q1
4.27%
Min
-3.83%

An Operating Profit Margin of 22.41% places APH in the upper quartile for the Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components industry. This signals a strong ability to translate revenue into operating profit, outperforming most of its competitors in core business efficiency.

UBER

9.03%

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
42.90%
Q3
23.80%
Median
10.93%
Q1
7.06%
Min
-12.94%

UBER’s Operating Profit Margin of 9.03% is around the midpoint for the Ground Transportation industry, indicating that its efficiency in managing core business operations is typical for the sector.

APH vs. UBER: A comparison of their Operating Profit Margin (TTM) against their respective Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components and Ground Transportation industry benchmarks.

Profitability at a Glance

SymbolAPHUBER
Return on Equity (TTM)30.97%62.42%
Return on Assets (TTM)14.20%24.38%
Net Profit Margin (TTM)16.90%26.68%
Operating Profit Margin (TTM)22.41%9.03%
Gross Profit Margin (TTM)34.73%33.93%

Financial Strength

Current Ratio (MRQ)

APH

2.02

Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components Industry

Max
4.57
Q3
2.85
Median
2.03
Q1
1.51
Min
0.62

APH’s Current Ratio of 2.02 aligns with the median group of the Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components industry, indicating that its short-term liquidity is in line with its sector peers.

UBER

1.11

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
2.00
Q3
1.31
Median
0.98
Q1
0.74
Min
0.35

UBER’s Current Ratio of 1.11 aligns with the median group of the Ground Transportation industry, indicating that its short-term liquidity is in line with its sector peers.

APH vs. UBER: A comparison of their Current Ratio (MRQ) against their respective Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components and Ground Transportation industry benchmarks.

Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ)

APH

0.70

Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components Industry

Max
1.14
Q3
0.54
Median
0.30
Q1
0.11
Min
0.00

APH’s leverage is in the upper quartile of the Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components industry, with a Debt-to-Equity Ratio of 0.70. While this approach can boost equity growth, it also exposes the company to greater financial vulnerability.

UBER

0.42

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
2.51
Q3
1.48
Median
1.02
Q1
0.48
Min
0.00

Falling into the lower quartile for the Ground Transportation industry, UBER’s Debt-to-Equity Ratio of 0.42 points to a conservative financing strategy. This results in lower financial risk but potentially limits strategic investments compared to more leveraged competitors.

APH vs. UBER: A comparison of their Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ) against their respective Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components and Ground Transportation industry benchmarks.

Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM)

APH

14.88

Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components Industry

Max
79.05
Q3
36.62
Median
12.51
Q1
3.72
Min
-18.73

APH’s Interest Coverage Ratio of 14.88 is positioned comfortably within the norm for the Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components industry, indicating a standard and healthy capacity to cover its interest payments.

UBER

-0.24

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
59.80
Q3
25.78
Median
8.23
Q1
2.52
Min
-24.57

UBER has a negative Interest Coverage Ratio of -0.24. This indicates that its earnings were insufficient to cover even its operational costs, let alone its interest payments, signaling significant financial distress.

APH vs. UBER: A comparison of their Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM) against their respective Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components and Ground Transportation industry benchmarks.

Financial Strength at a Glance

SymbolAPHUBER
Current Ratio (MRQ)2.021.11
Quick Ratio (MRQ)1.340.97
Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ)0.700.42
Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM)14.88-0.24

Growth

Revenue Growth

APH vs. UBER: A side-by-side comparison of their Revenue Growth for the MRQ (YoY), TTM (YoY), 3-Year CAGR, and 5-Year CAGR periods.

EPS Growth

APH vs. UBER: A side-by-side comparison of their EPS Growth for the MRQ (YoY), TTM (YoY), 3-Year CAGR, and 5-Year CAGR periods.

Dividend

Dividend Yield (TTM)

APH

0.48%

Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components Industry

Max
5.36%
Q3
2.53%
Median
1.28%
Q1
0.16%
Min
0.00%

APH’s Dividend Yield of 0.48% is consistent with its peers in the Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components industry, providing a dividend return that is standard for its sector.

UBER

0.00%

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
5.29%
Q3
2.57%
Median
1.59%
Q1
0.71%
Min
0.00%

UBER currently does not pay a dividend, resulting in a yield of 0%. This is a common strategy for growth-focused companies that prioritize reinvesting earnings, though it may be less typical in mature, income-oriented sectors.

APH vs. UBER: A comparison of their Dividend Yield (TTM) against their respective Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components and Ground Transportation industry benchmarks.

Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM)

APH

22.97%

Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components Industry

Max
218.94%
Q3
90.25%
Median
38.81%
Q1
3.69%
Min
0.00%

APH’s Dividend Payout Ratio of 22.97% is within the typical range for the Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components industry, suggesting a balanced approach between shareholder payouts and company reinvestment.

UBER

0.00%

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
149.12%
Q3
75.08%
Median
41.35%
Q1
16.42%
Min
0.00%

UBER has a Dividend Payout Ratio of 0%, indicating it does not currently pay a dividend. This is a common strategy for growth-oriented companies that reinvest all profits back into the business.

APH vs. UBER: A comparison of their Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM) against their respective Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components and Ground Transportation industry benchmarks.

Dividend at a Glance

SymbolAPHUBER
Dividend Yield (TTM)0.48%0.00%
Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM)22.97%0.00%

Valuation

Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM)

APH

47.73

Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components Industry

Max
74.74
Q3
42.40
Median
26.55
Q1
20.05
Min
10.12

A P/E Ratio of 47.73 places APH in the upper quartile for the Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components industry. This high valuation relative to peers suggests the market holds elevated expectations for the company’s future growth.

UBER

15.98

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
39.04
Q3
24.45
Median
17.51
Q1
12.92
Min
5.87

UBER’s P/E Ratio of 15.98 is within the middle range for the Ground Transportation industry. This suggests its valuation is in line with the sector average, representing neither a significant premium nor a discount compared to its peers.

APH vs. UBER: A comparison of their Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM) against their respective Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components and Ground Transportation industry benchmarks.

Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM)

APH

8.07

Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components Industry

Max
6.79
Q3
3.58
Median
2.05
Q1
1.29
Min
0.20

With a P/S Ratio of 8.07, APH trades at a valuation that eclipses even the highest in the Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components industry. This implies the market has priced in exceptionally optimistic scenarios for future revenue growth, posing considerable valuation risk.

UBER

4.26

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
2.82
Q3
2.22
Median
1.41
Q1
0.88
Min
0.24

With a P/S Ratio of 4.26, UBER trades at a valuation that eclipses even the highest in the Ground Transportation industry. This implies the market has priced in exceptionally optimistic scenarios for future revenue growth, posing considerable valuation risk.

APH vs. UBER: A comparison of their Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM) against their respective Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components and Ground Transportation industry benchmarks.

Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ)

APH

10.37

Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components Industry

Max
6.92
Q3
3.80
Median
2.23
Q1
1.42
Min
0.44

At 10.37, APH’s P/B Ratio is at an extreme premium to the Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components industry. This signifies that the market’s valuation is heavily reliant on future potential rather than its current net asset value, which can be a high-risk proposition.

UBER

8.63

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
5.27
Q3
3.03
Median
1.40
Q1
1.18
Min
0.67

At 8.63, UBER’s P/B Ratio is at an extreme premium to the Ground Transportation industry. This signifies that the market’s valuation is heavily reliant on future potential rather than its current net asset value, which can be a high-risk proposition.

APH vs. UBER: A comparison of their Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ) against their respective Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components and Ground Transportation industry benchmarks.

Valuation at a Glance

SymbolAPHUBER
Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM)47.7315.98
Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM)8.074.26
Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ)10.378.63
Price-to-Free Cash Flow Ratio (TTM)53.8723.63