Hardware, Equipment & Parts
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
DSWL vs FLEX vs JBL vs CLS vs SANM
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Hardware, Equipment & Parts
Hardware, Equipment & Parts
Hardware, Equipment & Parts
Hardware, Equipment & Parts
DSWL vs FLEX vs JBL vs CLS vs SANM — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Hardware, Equipment & Parts | Hardware, Equipment & Parts | Hardware, Equipment & Parts | Hardware, Equipment & Parts | Hardware, Equipment & Parts |
| Market Cap | $52M | $48.92B | $37.58B | $44.29B | $12.95B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $137M | $26.84B | $32.67B | $13.81B | $11.34B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $19M | $852M | $809M | $960M | $260M |
| Gross Margin | 20.1% | 9.1% | 9.0% | 11.6% | 8.5% |
| Operating Margin | 3.6% | 4.9% | 4.3% | 7.8% | 4.0% |
| Forward P/E | 4.7x | 43.8x | 28.8x | 37.1x | 22.2x |
| Total Debt | $0.00 | $4.15B | $3.37B | $914M | $394M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $28M | $2.29B | $1.93B | $595M | $966M |
DSWL vs FLEX vs JBL vs CLS vs SANM — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deswell Industries,… (DSWL) | 100 | 135.6 | +35.6% |
| Flex Ltd. (FLEX) | 100 | 1464.2 | +1364.2% |
| Jabil Inc. (JBL) | 100 | 1187.0 | +1087.0% |
| Celestica Inc. (CLS) | 100 | 5539.1 | +5439.1% |
| Sanmina Corporation (SANM) | 100 | 933.3 | +833.3% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: DSWL vs FLEX vs JBL vs CLS vs SANM
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
DSWL carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 7 yrs, beta 0.20, yield 6.1%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.20, current ratio 5.45x
- Beta 0.20, yield 6.1%, current ratio 5.45x
- Lower P/E (4.7x vs 22.2x)
FLEX plays a supporting role in this comparison — it may shine differently against other peers.
JBL is the clearest fit if your priority is valuation efficiency.
- PEG 0.38 vs SANM's 1.25
CLS is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure and long-term compounding is your priority.
- Rev growth 30.7%, EPS growth 101.9%, 3Y rev CAGR 20.3%
- 37.0% 10Y total return vs JBL's 19.6%
- 30.7% revenue growth vs DSWL's -2.5%
- +299.0% vs DSWL's +55.6%
Among these 5 stocks, SANM doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 30.7% revenue growth vs DSWL's -2.5% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (4.7x vs 22.2x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 13.8% margin vs SANM's 2.3% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.20 vs CLS's 2.75 | |
| Dividends | 6.1% yield, 7-year raise streak, vs JBL's 0.1%, (3 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +299.0% vs DSWL's +55.6% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 15.7% ROA vs SANM's 3.4%, ROIC 3.3% vs 13.0% |
DSWL vs FLEX vs JBL vs CLS vs SANM — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
DSWL vs FLEX vs JBL vs CLS vs SANM — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
DSWL leads in 3 of 6 categories
CLS leads 2 • FLEX leads 0 • JBL leads 0 • SANM leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
DSWL leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
JBL is the larger business by revenue, generating $32.7B annually — 238.5x DSWL's $137M. DSWL is the more profitable business, keeping 13.8% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to SANM's 2.3%. On growth, SANM holds the edge at +102.3% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $137M | $26.8B | $32.7B | $13.8B | $11.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $8M | $1.7B | $2.0B | $1.2B | $542M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $19M | $852M | $809M | $960M | $260M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $26M | $1.2B | $1.5B | $493M | $734M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +20.1% | +9.1% | +9.0% | +11.6% | +8.5% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +3.6% | +4.9% | +4.3% | +7.8% | +4.0% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +13.8% | +3.2% | +2.5% | +6.9% | +2.3% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +19.0% | +4.3% | +4.5% | +3.6% | +6.5% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +2.5% | +7.7% | +23.1% | +52.8% | +102.3% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +19.2% | -4.5% | +96.2% | +147.3% | +46.6% |
Valuation Metrics
DSWL leads this category, winning 5 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 4.7x trailing earnings, DSWL trades at a 93% valuation discount to FLEX's 63.1x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), CLS offers better value at 0.72x vs SANM's 2.99x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $52M | $48.9B | $37.6B | $44.3B | $12.9B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $24M | $50.8B | $39.0B | $44.6B | $12.4B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 4.67x | 63.05x | 59.06x | 52.84x | 53.16x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 43.79x | 28.85x | 37.09x | 22.25x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 0.96x | 0.78x | 0.72x | 2.99x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 4.96x | 29.73x | 21.02x | 35.18x | 26.10x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.77x | 1.90x | 1.26x | 3.51x | 1.59x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.51x | 10.59x | 25.56x | 20.23x | 5.15x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 3.95x | 45.85x | 32.07x | 94.97x | 27.35x |
Profitability & Efficiency
CLS leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
JBL delivers a 58.8% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $59 in annual profit, vs $7 for SANM. SANM carries lower financial leverage with a 0.16x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to JBL's 2.22x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), DSWL scores 7/9 vs JBL's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +18.5% | +16.8% | +58.8% | +47.7% | +7.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +15.7% | +4.4% | +4.2% | +13.6% | +3.4% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +3.3% | +13.0% | +30.9% | +34.0% | +13.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +3.4% | +12.8% | +22.7% | +34.9% | +12.0% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 0.83x | 2.22x | 0.41x | 0.16x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$28M | $1.9B | $1.4B | $320M | -$572M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $28M | $2.3B | $1.9B | $595M | $966M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $0 | $4.1B | $3.4B | $914M | $394M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | 6.38x | 4.57x | 21.51x | 6.35x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
CLS leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in CLS five years ago would be worth $463,550 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $10,756 for DSWL. Over the past 12 months, CLS leads with a +299.0% total return vs DSWL's +55.6%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CLS at 2.3% vs DSWL's 11.9% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -3.8% | +108.9% | +45.5% | +27.4% | +48.8% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +55.6% | +250.6% | +129.2% | +299.0% | +197.6% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +40.2% | +538.7% | +347.3% | +3357.9% | +344.6% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +7.6% | +611.9% | +540.6% | +4535.5% | +464.5% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +210.5% | +998.6% | +1957.5% | +3695.2% | +875.3% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +11.9% | +85.5% | +64.8% | +2.3% | +64.4% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — DSWL and SANM each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
DSWL is the less volatile stock with a 0.20 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than CLS's 2.75 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. SANM currently trades 98.3% from its 52-week high vs DSWL's 73.0% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.24x | 2.37x | 1.84x | 2.71x | 2.00x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $4.48 | $139.39 | $372.34 | $435.00 | $241.24 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $1.93 | $34.94 | $148.84 | $92.30 | $78.12 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +73.0% | +95.4% | +93.9% | +88.6% | +98.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 53.6 | 90.9 | 78.8 | 62.5 | 80.6 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 10K | 3.8M | 1.1M | 2.1M | 812K |
Analyst Outlook
DSWL leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: FLEX as "Buy", JBL as "Buy", CLS as "Buy", SANM as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 19.2% upside for CLS (target: $459) vs -21.9% for JBL (target: $273). DSWL is the only dividend payer here at 6.11% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Buy | Buy | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $145.17 | $273.00 | $459.00 | $200.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 25 | 23 | 27 | 17 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +6.1% | — | +0.1% | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 7 | 0 | 0 | — | 1 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.20 | — | $0.32 | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +2.6% | +2.7% | +0.9% | +0.9% |
DSWL leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). CLS leads in 2 (Profitability & Efficiency, Total Returns). 1 tied.
DSWL vs FLEX vs JBL vs CLS vs SANM: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is DSWL or FLEX or JBL or CLS or SANM a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Celestica Inc.
(CLS) is the stronger pick with 30. 7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -2. 5% for Deswell Industries, Inc. (DSWL). Deswell Industries, Inc. (DSWL) offers the better valuation at 4. 7x trailing P/E, making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Flex Ltd. (FLEX) a "Buy" — based on 25 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.
02Which has the better valuation — DSWL or FLEX or JBL or CLS or SANM?
On trailing P/E, Deswell Industries, Inc.
(DSWL) is the cheapest at 4. 7x versus Flex Ltd. at 63. 1x. On forward P/E, Sanmina Corporation is actually cheaper at 22. 2x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Jabil Inc. wins at 0. 38x versus Sanmina Corporation's 1. 25x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — DSWL or FLEX or JBL or CLS or SANM?
Over the past 5 years, Celestica Inc.
(CLS) delivered a total return of +45. 4%, compared to +7. 6% for Deswell Industries, Inc. (DSWL). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CLS returned +36. 0% versus DSWL's +218. 9%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — DSWL or FLEX or JBL or CLS or SANM?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Deswell Industries, Inc.
(DSWL) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 24β versus Celestica Inc. 's 2. 71β — meaning CLS is approximately 1014% more volatile than DSWL relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Sanmina Corporation (SANM) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 16% versus 2% for Jabil Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — DSWL or FLEX or JBL or CLS or SANM?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Celestica Inc.
(CLS) is pulling ahead at 30. 7% versus -2. 5% for Deswell Industries, Inc. (DSWL). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Celestica Inc. grew EPS 101. 9% year-over-year, compared to -47. 0% for Jabil Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, CLS leads at 20. 3% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.
06Which has better profit margins — DSWL or FLEX or JBL or CLS or SANM?
Deswell Industries, Inc.
(DSWL) is the more profitable company, earning 16. 5% net margin versus 2. 2% for Jabil Inc. — meaning it keeps 16. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: CLS leads at 8. 6% versus 4. 0% for JBL. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — DSWL leads at 20. 2%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.
07Is DSWL or FLEX or JBL or CLS or SANM more undervalued right now?
The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.
By this metric, Jabil Inc. (JBL) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 38x versus Sanmina Corporation's 1. 25x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Sanmina Corporation (SANM) trades at 22. 2x forward P/E versus 43. 8x for Flex Ltd. — 21. 5x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for CLS: 19. 2% to $459. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — DSWL or FLEX or JBL or CLS or SANM?
In this comparison, DSWL (6.
1% yield) pays a dividend. FLEX, JBL, CLS, SANM do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is DSWL or FLEX or JBL or CLS or SANM better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Deswell Industries, Inc.
(DSWL) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 24), 6. 1% yield, +218. 9% 10Y return). Celestica Inc. (CLS) carries a higher beta of 2. 71 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (DSWL: +218. 9%, CLS: +36. 0%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.
10What are the main differences between DSWL and FLEX and JBL and CLS and SANM?
Both stocks operate in the Technology sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
In terms of investment character: DSWL is a small-cap deep-value stock; FLEX is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; JBL is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; CLS is a mid-cap high-growth stock; SANM is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. DSWL pays a dividend while FLEX, JBL, CLS, SANM do not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.