Seek Returns logo

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

Updated on

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

Company Profile

SymbolCLSUBER
Company NameCelestica Inc.Uber Technologies, Inc.
CountryCanadaUnited States
GICS SectorInformation TechnologyIndustrials
GICS IndustryElectronic Equipment, Instruments & ComponentsGround Transportation
Market Capitalization23.49 billion USD189.42 billion USD
ExchangeNYSENYSE
Listing DateJune 30, 1998May 10, 2019
Security TypeCommon StockCommon Stock

Historical Performance

This chart compares the performance of CLS 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.

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

Historical Performance at a Glance

SymbolCLSUBER
5-Day Price Return7.73%-1.99%
13-Week Price Return126.89%3.10%
26-Week Price Return43.11%29.78%
52-Week Price Return335.42%31.14%
Month-to-Date Return6.23%3.51%
Year-to-Date Return121.82%50.58%
10-Day Avg. Volume1.06M21.46M
3-Month Avg. Volume0.87M21.23M
3-Month Volatility54.67%32.88%
Beta2.981.49

Profitability

Return on Equity (TTM)

CLS

30.66%

Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components Industry

Max
29.99%
Q3
15.78%
Median
9.05%
Q1
5.63%
Min
-9.55%

CLS’s Return on Equity of 30.66% 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
22.11%
Q3
13.84%
Median
9.66%
Q1
7.55%
Min
0.36%

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.

CLS 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)

CLS

5.09%

Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components Industry

Max
25.55%
Q3
12.80%
Median
7.58%
Q1
3.09%
Min
-8.70%

CLS’s Net Profit Margin of 5.09% is aligned with the median group of its peers in the Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components industry. This indicates its ability to convert revenue into profit is typical for the sector.

UBER

26.68%

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
32.20%
Q3
18.59%
Median
7.11%
Q1
4.13%
Min
-10.38%

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.

CLS 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)

CLS

7.01%

Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components Industry

Max
30.04%
Q3
16.04%
Median
9.75%
Q1
4.27%
Min
-12.63%

CLS’s Operating Profit Margin of 7.01% is around the midpoint for the Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components industry, indicating that its efficiency in managing core business operations is typical for the sector.

UBER

9.03%

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
41.31%
Q3
23.16%
Median
11.33%
Q1
6.82%
Min
-12.08%

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.

CLS 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

SymbolCLSUBER
Return on Equity (TTM)30.66%62.42%
Return on Assets (TTM)8.98%24.38%
Net Profit Margin (TTM)5.09%26.68%
Operating Profit Margin (TTM)7.01%9.03%
Gross Profit Margin (TTM)11.36%33.93%

Financial Strength

Current Ratio (MRQ)

CLS

1.44

Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components Industry

Max
4.43
Q3
2.88
Median
2.05
Q1
1.52
Min
0.64

CLS’s Current Ratio of 1.44 falls into the lower quartile for the Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components industry. This indicates a tighter liquidity situation and a more constrained capacity to handle short-term debt than many of its competitors.

UBER

1.11

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
2.03
Q3
1.26
Median
0.89
Q1
0.73
Min
0.38

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.

CLS 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)

CLS

0.50

Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components Industry

Max
1.14
Q3
0.54
Median
0.34
Q1
0.11
Min
0.00

CLS’s Debt-to-Equity Ratio of 0.50 is typical for the Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components industry, indicating its use of leverage is in line with the sector norm. This suggests a balanced approach to its capital structure.

UBER

0.42

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
2.51
Q3
1.51
Median
1.06
Q1
0.47
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.

CLS 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)

CLS

36.72

Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components Industry

Max
101.00
Q3
43.88
Median
13.27
Q1
3.73
Min
-18.73

CLS’s Interest Coverage Ratio of 36.72 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
51.07
Q3
22.54
Median
7.94
Q1
2.72
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.

CLS 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

SymbolCLSUBER
Current Ratio (MRQ)1.441.11
Quick Ratio (MRQ)0.860.97
Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ)0.500.42
Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM)36.72-0.24

Growth

Revenue Growth

CLS 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

CLS 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)

CLS

0.00%

Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components Industry

Max
4.86%
Q3
2.53%
Median
1.28%
Q1
0.16%
Min
0.00%

CLS 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.

UBER

0.00%

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
5.44%
Q3
2.49%
Median
1.53%
Q1
0.39%
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.

CLS 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)

CLS

0.00%

Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components Industry

Max
161.37%
Q3
67.12%
Median
34.46%
Q1
3.82%
Min
0.00%

CLS 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.

UBER

0.00%

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
137.07%
Q3
74.71%
Median
41.16%
Q1
15.12%
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.

CLS 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

SymbolCLSUBER
Dividend Yield (TTM)0.00%0.00%
Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM)0.00%0.00%

Valuation

Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM)

CLS

45.70

Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components Industry

Max
73.87
Q3
41.11
Median
25.31
Q1
18.58
Min
8.59

A P/E Ratio of 45.70 places CLS 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

14.99

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
42.59
Q3
24.86
Median
16.38
Q1
12.79
Min
4.37

UBER’s P/E Ratio of 14.99 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.

CLS 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)

CLS

2.32

Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components Industry

Max
6.74
Q3
3.49
Median
2.03
Q1
1.16
Min
0.11

CLS’s P/S Ratio of 2.32 aligns with the market consensus for the Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components industry. This suggests its valuation, based on sales, is seen as standard and is on par with its competitors.

UBER

4.00

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
4.02
Q3
2.20
Median
1.23
Q1
0.87
Min
0.22

UBER’s P/S Ratio of 4.00 is in the upper echelon for the Ground Transportation industry. This means the company is valued richly on its revenue stream compared to its peers, suggesting the stock is priced for a high level of future performance.

CLS 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)

CLS

10.12

Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components Industry

Max
6.45
Q3
3.49
Median
1.98
Q1
1.31
Min
0.35

At 10.12, CLS’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
4.95
Q3
2.78
Median
1.38
Q1
1.17
Min
0.64

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.

CLS 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

SymbolCLSUBER
Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM)45.7014.99
Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM)2.324.00
Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ)10.128.63
Price-to-Free Cash Flow Ratio (TTM)63.7222.17