Electrical Equipment & Parts
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
HUBB vs LEGN vs ETN vs FATE vs EMR
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Industrial - Machinery
Biotechnology
Industrial - Machinery
HUBB vs LEGN vs ETN vs FATE vs EMR — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Electrical Equipment & Parts | Biotechnology | Industrial - Machinery | Biotechnology | Industrial - Machinery |
| Market Cap | $26.19B | $5.19B | $155.91B | $276M | $79.14B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $6.00B | $1.03B | $28.52B | $7M | $18.32B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $906M | $-297M | $3.99B | $-136M | $2.44B |
| Gross Margin | 35.5% | 60.3% | 36.9% | — | 52.7% |
| Operating Margin | 20.8% | -13.2% | 18.1% | -22.2% | 19.8% |
| Forward P/E | 24.9x | 116.2x | 30.1x | — | 21.7x |
| Total Debt | $2.61B | $414M | $11.17B | $78M | $13.76B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $483M | $902M | $622M | $47M | $1.54B |
HUBB vs LEGN vs ETN vs FATE vs EMR — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jun 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hubbell Incorporated (HUBB) | 100 | 392.9 | +292.9% |
| Legend Biotech Corp… (LEGN) | 100 | 66.1 | -33.9% |
| Eaton Corporation p… (ETN) | 100 | 459.0 | +359.0% |
| Fate Therapeutics, … (FATE) | 100 | 7.0 | -93.0% |
| Emerson Electric Co. (EMR) | 100 | 227.8 | +127.8% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: HUBB vs LEGN vs ETN vs FATE vs EMR
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
HUBB has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in valuation efficiency and defensive.
- PEG 1.20 vs EMR's 4.80
- Beta 1.32, yield 1.1%, current ratio 1.72x
- 15.1% margin vs FATE's -20.5%
- 11.6% ROA vs FATE's -42.7%, ROIC 17.1% vs -36.5%
LEGN is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure and sleep-well-at-night is your priority.
- Rev growth 64.5%, EPS growth -66.0%, 3Y rev CAGR 106.6%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.76, Low D/E 41.3%, current ratio 1.96x
- 64.5% revenue growth vs FATE's -51.2%
- Beta 0.76 vs FATE's 1.99
ETN is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- 6.1% 10Y total return vs HUBB's 410.2%
FATE is the clearest fit if your priority is momentum.
- +132.0% vs LEGN's -12.2%
EMR ranks third and is worth considering specifically for income & stability.
- Dividend streak 37 yrs, beta 1.57, yield 1.5%
- Better valuation composite
- 1.5% yield, 37-year raise streak, vs HUBB's 1.1%, (2 stocks pay no dividend)
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 64.5% revenue growth vs FATE's -51.2% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 15.1% margin vs FATE's -20.5% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.76 vs FATE's 1.99 | |
| Dividends | 1.5% yield, 37-year raise streak, vs HUBB's 1.1%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +132.0% vs LEGN's -12.2% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 11.6% ROA vs FATE's -42.7%, ROIC 17.1% vs -36.5% |
HUBB vs LEGN vs ETN vs FATE vs EMR — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
HUBB vs LEGN vs ETN vs FATE vs EMR — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
EMR leads in 2 of 6 categories
HUBB leads 1 • ETN leads 1 • LEGN leads 0 • FATE leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — HUBB and LEGN each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ETN is the larger business by revenue, generating $28.5B annually — 4291.6x FATE's $7M. HUBB is the more profitable business, keeping 15.1% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to FATE's -20.5%. On growth, LEGN holds the edge at +64.9% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $6.0B | $1.0B | $28.5B | $7M | $18.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $1.5B | -$107M | $5.9B | -$148M | $4.7B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $906M | -$297M | $4.0B | -$136M | $2.4B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $909M | -$231M | $4.7B | -$88M | $3.1B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +35.5% | +60.3% | +36.9% | — | +52.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +20.8% | -13.2% | +18.1% | -22.2% | +19.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +15.1% | -28.8% | +14.0% | -20.5% | +13.3% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +15.2% | -22.4% | +16.5% | -13.2% | +17.0% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +11.1% | +64.9% | +16.8% | -26.4% | +2.9% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +8.3% | -2.2% | -9.4% | +38.6% | +28.2% |
Valuation Metrics
EMR leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 29.8x trailing earnings, HUBB trades at a 22% valuation discount to ETN's 38.4x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), HUBB offers better value at 1.43x vs EMR's 7.74x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $26.2B | $5.2B | $155.9B | $276M | $79.1B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $28.3B | $4.7B | $166.5B | $307M | $91.4B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 29.78x | -8.73x | 38.39x | -2.08x | 34.97x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 24.95x | 116.25x | 30.11x | — | 21.70x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 1.43x | — | 1.56x | — | 7.74x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 20.79x | — | 27.84x | — | 18.09x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 4.48x | 5.03x | 5.68x | 41.49x | 4.39x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 6.84x | 2.59x | 8.03x | 1.37x | 3.94x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 29.94x | — | 34.86x | — | 29.67x |
Profitability & Efficiency
HUBB leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
HUBB delivers a 24.4% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $24 in annual profit, vs $-66 for FATE. FATE carries lower financial leverage with a 0.38x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to EMR's 0.68x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), HUBB scores 7/9 vs FATE's 2/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +24.4% | -29.2% | +20.8% | -65.8% | +12.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +11.6% | -17.6% | +9.0% | -42.7% | +5.8% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +17.1% | -12.7% | +13.6% | -36.5% | +8.2% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +20.1% | -11.0% | +16.8% | -43.1% | +10.0% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.68x | 0.41x | 0.57x | 0.38x | 0.68x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $2.1B | -$488M | $10.5B | $31M | $12.2B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $483M | $902M | $622M | $47M | $1.5B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $2.6B | $414M | $11.2B | $78M | $13.8B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 16.90x | -12.69x | 16.38x | — | 6.46x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
ETN leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in ETN five years ago would be worth $28,530 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $316 for FATE. Over the past 12 months, FATE leads with a +132.0% total return vs LEGN's -12.2%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors ETN at 34.5% vs LEGN's -25.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +6.7% | +30.7% | +23.3% | +141.4% | +4.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +40.5% | -12.2% | +32.2% | +132.0% | +27.7% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +87.7% | -59.1% | +143.3% | -56.1% | +76.2% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +161.4% | -4.2% | +185.3% | -96.8% | +59.1% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +410.2% | -24.0% | +614.3% | +38.2% | +207.0% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +23.4% | -25.8% | +34.5% | -24.0% | +20.8% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — LEGN and FATE each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
LEGN is the less volatile stock with a 0.76 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than FATE's 1.99 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. FATE currently trades 97.0% from its 52-week high vs LEGN's 62.1% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.32x | 0.76x | 1.45x | 1.99x | 1.57x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $565.50 | $45.30 | $435.43 | $2.46 | $165.15 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $353.52 | $16.24 | $304.22 | $0.91 | $109.53 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +87.1% | +62.1% | +92.2% | +97.0% | +85.6% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 38.0 | 74.8 | 48.3 | 82.9 | 51.4 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 547K | 1.9M | 2.5M | 1.9M | 2.8M |
Analyst Outlook
EMR leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: HUBB as "Hold", LEGN as "Buy", ETN as "Buy", FATE as "Buy", EMR as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 1552.7% upside for FATE (target: $40) vs -1.0% for ETN (target: $398). For income investors, EMR offers the higher dividend yield at 1.49% vs ETN's 1.04%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $545.43 | $57.89 | $397.50 | $39.50 | $161.31 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 17 | 19 | 39 | 31 | 41 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +1.1% | — | +1.0% | — | +1.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 12 | — | 24 | — | 37 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $5.35 | — | $4.17 | — | $2.10 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.9% | 0.0% | +1.2% | 0.0% | +1.6% |
EMR leads in 2 of 6 categories (Valuation Metrics, Analyst Outlook). HUBB leads in 1 (Profitability & Efficiency). 2 tied.
HUBB vs LEGN vs ETN vs FATE vs EMR: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is HUBB or LEGN or ETN or FATE or EMR a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Legend Biotech Corporation (LEGN) is the stronger pick with 64.
5% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -51. 2% for Fate Therapeutics, Inc. (FATE). Hubbell Incorporated (HUBB) offers the better valuation at 29. 8x trailing P/E (24. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Legend Biotech Corporation (LEGN) a "Buy" — based on 19 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 — HUBB or LEGN or ETN or FATE or EMR?
On trailing P/E, Hubbell Incorporated (HUBB) is the cheapest at 29.
8x versus Eaton Corporation plc at 38. 4x. On forward P/E, Emerson Electric Co. is actually cheaper at 21. 7x — 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: Hubbell Incorporated wins at 1. 20x versus Emerson Electric Co. 's 4. 80x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.
03Which is the better long-term investment — HUBB or LEGN or ETN or FATE or EMR?
Over the past 5 years, Eaton Corporation plc (ETN) delivered a total return of +185.
3%, compared to -96. 8% for Fate Therapeutics, Inc. (FATE). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ETN returned +614. 3% versus LEGN's -24. 0%. 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 — HUBB or LEGN or ETN or FATE or EMR?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Legend Biotech Corporation (LEGN) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
76β versus Fate Therapeutics, Inc. 's 1. 99β — meaning FATE is approximately 163% more volatile than LEGN relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Fate Therapeutics, Inc. (FATE) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 38% versus 68% for Emerson Electric Co. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — HUBB or LEGN or ETN or FATE or EMR?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Legend Biotech Corporation (LEGN) is pulling ahead at 64.
5% versus -51. 2% for Fate Therapeutics, Inc. (FATE). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Fate Therapeutics, Inc. grew EPS 29. 9% year-over-year, compared to -66. 0% for Legend Biotech Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, LEGN leads at 106. 6% 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 — HUBB or LEGN or ETN or FATE or EMR?
Hubbell Incorporated (HUBB) is the more profitable company, earning 15.
2% net margin versus -20. 5% for Fate Therapeutics, Inc. — meaning it keeps 15. 2% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: HUBB leads at 20. 8% versus -22. 2% for FATE. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — LEGN leads at 60. 3%, 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 HUBB or LEGN or ETN or FATE or EMR 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, Hubbell Incorporated (HUBB) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 20x versus Emerson Electric Co. 's 4. 80x. A PEG below 1. 5 suggests fair-to-attractive pricing relative to expected growth. On forward earnings alone, Emerson Electric Co. (EMR) trades at 21. 7x forward P/E versus 116. 2x for Legend Biotech Corporation — 94. 5x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for FATE: 1552. 7% to $39. 50.
08Which pays a better dividend — HUBB or LEGN or ETN or FATE or EMR?
In this comparison, EMR (1.
5% yield), HUBB (1. 1% yield), ETN (1. 0% yield) pay a dividend. LEGN, FATE do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is HUBB or LEGN or ETN or FATE or EMR better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Eaton Corporation plc (ETN) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (1.
0% yield, +614. 3% 10Y return). Fate Therapeutics, Inc. (FATE) carries a higher beta of 1. 99 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (ETN: +614. 3%, FATE: +38. 2%), 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 HUBB and LEGN and ETN and FATE and EMR?
These companies operate in different sectors (HUBB (Industrials) and LEGN (Healthcare) and ETN (Industrials) and FATE (Healthcare) and EMR (Industrials)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: HUBB is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; LEGN is a small-cap high-growth stock; ETN is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; FATE is a small-cap quality compounder stock; EMR is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. HUBB, ETN, EMR pay a dividend while LEGN, FATE 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.