Seek Returns logo

CNH vs. PWR: A Head-to-Head Stock Comparison

Updated on

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

Company Profile

SymbolCNHPWR
Company NameCNH Industrial N.V.Quanta Services, Inc.
CountryUnited KingdomUnited States
GICS SectorIndustrialsIndustrials
GICS IndustryMachineryConstruction & Engineering
Market Capitalization16.05 billion USD56.62 billion USD
ExchangeNYSENYSE
Listing DateSeptember 30, 2013February 12, 1998
Security TypeCommon StockCommon Stock

Historical Performance

This chart compares the performance of CNH and PWR 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.

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

Historical Performance at a Glance

SymbolCNHPWR
5-Day Price Return3.13%-1.91%
13-Week Price Return-3.53%14.17%
26-Week Price Return5.34%22.14%
52-Week Price Return35.77%46.12%
Month-to-Date Return-1.00%-6.44%
Year-to-Date Return13.24%20.22%
10-Day Avg. Volume12.88M1.31M
3-Month Avg. Volume18.37M1.24M
3-Month Volatility28.28%23.85%
Beta1.551.05

Profitability

Return on Equity (TTM)

CNH

10.67%

Machinery Industry

Max
34.68%
Q3
19.06%
Median
13.13%
Q1
8.53%
Min
-4.87%

CNH’s Return on Equity of 10.67% is on par with the norm for the Machinery industry, indicating its profitability relative to shareholder equity is typical for the sector.

PWR

13.09%

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
29.61%
Q3
17.18%
Median
10.42%
Q1
8.10%
Min
-0.10%

PWR’s Return on Equity of 13.09% is on par with the norm for the Construction & Engineering industry, indicating its profitability relative to shareholder equity is typical for the sector.

CNH vs. PWR: A comparison of their Return on Equity (TTM) against their respective Machinery and Construction & Engineering industry benchmarks.

Net Profit Margin (TTM)

CNH

4.55%

Machinery Industry

Max
19.74%
Q3
11.24%
Median
8.13%
Q1
5.38%
Min
-1.11%

Falling into the lower quartile for the Machinery industry, CNH’s Net Profit Margin of 4.55% indicates weaker profitability. This means the company retains a smaller portion of each dollar in sales as profit compared to its competitors.

PWR

3.73%

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
11.14%
Q3
6.17%
Median
3.85%
Q1
2.40%
Min
-0.05%

PWR’s Net Profit Margin of 3.73% is aligned with the median group of its peers in the Construction & Engineering industry. This indicates its ability to convert revenue into profit is typical for the sector.

CNH vs. PWR: A comparison of their Net Profit Margin (TTM) against their respective Machinery and Construction & Engineering industry benchmarks.

Operating Profit Margin (TTM)

CNH

17.85%

Machinery Industry

Max
26.63%
Q3
16.15%
Median
11.27%
Q1
7.72%
Min
-4.91%

An Operating Profit Margin of 17.85% places CNH in the upper quartile for the Machinery industry. This signals a strong ability to translate revenue into operating profit, outperforming most of its competitors in core business efficiency.

PWR

5.73%

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
17.56%
Q3
9.36%
Median
5.46%
Q1
3.47%
Min
-1.93%

PWR’s Operating Profit Margin of 5.73% is around the midpoint for the Construction & Engineering industry, indicating that its efficiency in managing core business operations is typical for the sector.

CNH vs. PWR: A comparison of their Operating Profit Margin (TTM) against their respective Machinery and Construction & Engineering industry benchmarks.

Profitability at a Glance

SymbolCNHPWR
Return on Equity (TTM)10.67%13.09%
Return on Assets (TTM)1.91%5.08%
Net Profit Margin (TTM)4.55%3.73%
Operating Profit Margin (TTM)17.85%5.73%
Gross Profit Margin (TTM)32.40%15.04%

Financial Strength

Current Ratio (MRQ)

CNH

1.24

Machinery Industry

Max
3.83
Q3
2.32
Median
1.72
Q1
1.28
Min
0.78

CNH’s Current Ratio of 1.24 falls into the lower quartile for the Machinery industry. This indicates a tighter liquidity situation and a more constrained capacity to handle short-term debt than many of its competitors.

PWR

1.37

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
1.98
Q3
1.53
Median
1.24
Q1
1.05
Min
0.66

PWR’s Current Ratio of 1.37 aligns with the median group of the Construction & Engineering industry, indicating that its short-term liquidity is in line with its sector peers.

CNH vs. PWR: A comparison of their Current Ratio (MRQ) against their respective Machinery and Construction & Engineering industry benchmarks.

Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ)

CNH

3.55

Machinery Industry

Max
1.49
Q3
0.75
Median
0.44
Q1
0.26
Min
0.00

With a Debt-to-Equity Ratio of 3.55, CNH operates with exceptionally high leverage compared to the Machinery industry norm. This suggests an aggressive reliance on debt financing, which can magnify returns but also significantly elevates financial risk.

PWR

0.60

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
2.49
Q3
1.19
Median
0.63
Q1
0.29
Min
0.00

PWR’s Debt-to-Equity Ratio of 0.60 is typical for the Construction & Engineering industry, indicating its use of leverage is in line with the sector norm. This suggests a balanced approach to its capital structure.

CNH vs. PWR: A comparison of their Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ) against their respective Machinery and Construction & Engineering industry benchmarks.

Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM)

CNH

1.93

Machinery Industry

Max
67.55
Q3
33.79
Median
13.87
Q1
7.97
Min
-1.43

In the lower quartile for the Machinery industry, CNH’s Interest Coverage Ratio of 1.93 indicates a tighter cushion for servicing debt, suggesting less financial flexibility than many of its competitors.

PWR

10.76

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
23.59
Q3
14.49
Median
8.20
Q1
5.26
Min
-6.49

PWR’s Interest Coverage Ratio of 10.76 is positioned comfortably within the norm for the Construction & Engineering industry, indicating a standard and healthy capacity to cover its interest payments.

CNH vs. PWR: A comparison of their Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM) against their respective Machinery and Construction & Engineering industry benchmarks.

Financial Strength at a Glance

SymbolCNHPWR
Current Ratio (MRQ)1.241.37
Quick Ratio (MRQ)0.451.24
Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ)3.550.60
Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM)1.9310.76

Growth

Revenue Growth

CNH vs. PWR: 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

CNH vs. PWR: 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)

CNH

2.08%

Machinery Industry

Max
5.32%
Q3
2.84%
Median
1.87%
Q1
1.09%
Min
0.00%

CNH’s Dividend Yield of 2.08% is consistent with its peers in the Machinery industry, providing a dividend return that is standard for its sector.

PWR

0.10%

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
6.28%
Q3
3.25%
Median
2.02%
Q1
0.23%
Min
0.00%

PWR’s Dividend Yield of 0.10% is in the lower quartile for the Construction & Engineering industry. This suggests the company’s strategy likely favors retaining earnings for growth over providing a high dividend income.

CNH vs. PWR: A comparison of their Dividend Yield (TTM) against their respective Machinery and Construction & Engineering industry benchmarks.

Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM)

CNH

40.58%

Machinery Industry

Max
202.17%
Q3
98.65%
Median
55.54%
Q1
29.03%
Min
0.00%

CNH’s Dividend Payout Ratio of 40.58% is within the typical range for the Machinery industry, suggesting a balanced approach between shareholder payouts and company reinvestment.

PWR

5.92%

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
139.17%
Q3
69.47%
Median
40.99%
Q1
10.51%
Min
0.00%

PWR’s Dividend Payout Ratio of 5.92% is in the lower quartile for the Construction & Engineering industry. This suggests a conservative dividend policy, with a strategic focus on reinvesting profits for future growth.

CNH vs. PWR: A comparison of their Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM) against their respective Machinery and Construction & Engineering industry benchmarks.

Dividend at a Glance

SymbolCNHPWR
Dividend Yield (TTM)2.08%0.10%
Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM)40.58%5.92%

Valuation

Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM)

CNH

19.51

Machinery Industry

Max
53.66
Q3
31.29
Median
22.00
Q1
16.18
Min
7.00

CNH’s P/E Ratio of 19.51 is within the middle range for the Machinery industry. This suggests its valuation is in line with the sector average, representing neither a significant premium nor a discount compared to its peers.

PWR

59.76

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
36.96
Q3
24.81
Median
15.45
Q1
12.51
Min
2.74

At 59.76, PWR’s P/E Ratio is exceptionally high, exceeding the typical maximum for the Construction & Engineering industry. This suggests the stock may be significantly overvalued compared to its peers and implies high market expectations that could be difficult to meet.

CNH vs. PWR: A comparison of their Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM) against their respective Machinery and Construction & Engineering industry benchmarks.

Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM)

CNH

0.89

Machinery Industry

Max
5.04
Q3
2.72
Median
1.67
Q1
1.04
Min
0.24

In the lower quartile for the Machinery industry, CNH’s P/S Ratio of 0.89 indicates its revenue is valued more conservatively than most of its peers. This could present a compelling opportunity if the market has overlooked its sales-generating capabilities.

PWR

2.23

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
3.22
Q3
1.63
Median
0.61
Q1
0.48
Min
0.11

PWR’s P/S Ratio of 2.23 is in the upper echelon for the Construction & Engineering 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.

CNH vs. PWR: A comparison of their Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM) against their respective Machinery and Construction & Engineering industry benchmarks.

Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ)

CNH

2.10

Machinery Industry

Max
7.23
Q3
3.90
Median
2.52
Q1
1.47
Min
0.49

CNH’s P/B Ratio of 2.10 is within the conventional range for the Machinery industry. This shows a balanced market view, where the stock’s price is neither at a significant premium nor a discount to the book value of its peers.

PWR

7.13

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
5.74
Q3
3.33
Median
1.49
Q1
1.20
Min
0.23

At 7.13, PWR’s P/B Ratio is at an extreme premium to the Construction & Engineering 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.

CNH vs. PWR: A comparison of their Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ) against their respective Machinery and Construction & Engineering industry benchmarks.

Valuation at a Glance

SymbolCNHPWR
Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM)19.5159.76
Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM)0.892.23
Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ)2.107.13
Price-to-Free Cash Flow Ratio (TTM)7.1842.76