Specialty Business Services
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
TH vs CEVA vs RMBS vs MGRC
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Semiconductors
Semiconductors
Rental & Leasing Services
TH vs CEVA vs RMBS vs MGRC — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Specialty Business Services | Semiconductors | Semiconductors | Rental & Leasing Services |
| Market Cap | $1.56B | $810M | $12.77B | $2.78B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $321M | $108M | $721M | $947M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-37M | $-11M | $230M | $155M |
| Gross Margin | 8.3% | 87.2% | 77.0% | 45.9% |
| Operating Margin | -10.3% | -10.1% | 35.9% | 25.5% |
| Forward P/E | — | 69.2x | 44.0x | 17.5x |
| Total Debt | $11M | $6M | $44M | $528M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $8M | $18M | $183M | $295K |
TH vs CEVA vs RMBS vs MGRC — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Target Hospitality … (TH) | 100 | 663.4 | +563.4% |
| CEVA, Inc. (CEVA) | 100 | 100.6 | +0.6% |
| Rambus Inc. (RMBS) | 100 | 836.8 | +736.8% |
| McGrath RentCorp (MGRC) | 100 | 202.8 | +102.8% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: TH vs CEVA vs RMBS vs MGRC
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
TH is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night and defensive.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.79, Low D/E 2.7%, current ratio 0.87x
- Beta 0.79, current ratio 0.87x
- Beta 0.79 vs RMBS's 3.00, lower leverage
CEVA lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
RMBS carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 27.1%, EPS growth 27.9%, 3Y rev CAGR 15.9%
- 9.5% 10Y total return vs MGRC's 393.0%
- 27.1% revenue growth vs TH's -17.0%
- 31.9% margin vs TH's -11.6%
MGRC is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability is your priority.
- Dividend streak 36 yrs, beta 0.87, yield 1.7%
- Lower P/E (17.5x vs 44.0x)
- 1.7% yield; 36-year raise streak; the other 3 pay no meaningful dividend
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 27.1% revenue growth vs TH's -17.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (17.5x vs 44.0x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 31.9% margin vs TH's -11.6% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.79 vs RMBS's 3.00, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 1.7% yield; 36-year raise streak; the other 3 pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +132.9% vs MGRC's +6.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 15.5% ROA vs TH's -6.9%, ROIC 17.1% vs -5.8% |
TH vs CEVA vs RMBS vs MGRC — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
TH vs CEVA vs RMBS vs MGRC — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
RMBS leads in 3 of 6 categories
MGRC leads 2 • TH leads 1 • CEVA leads 0
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
RMBS leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MGRC is the larger business by revenue, generating $947M annually — 8.8x CEVA's $108M. RMBS is the more profitable business, keeping 31.9% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to TH's -11.6%. On growth, RMBS holds the edge at +8.1% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $321M | $108M | $721M | $947M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $40M | -$7M | $288M | $350M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$37M | -$11M | $230M | $155M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $39M | -$6M | $335M | $196M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +8.3% | +87.2% | +77.0% | +45.9% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -10.3% | -10.1% | +35.9% | +25.5% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -11.6% | -10.5% | +31.9% | +16.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +12.3% | -6.0% | +46.5% | +20.7% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +7.3% | +4.3% | +8.1% | +1.6% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -2.3% | -2.0% | -1.8% | -4.3% |
Valuation Metrics
MGRC leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 17.8x trailing earnings, MGRC trades at a 68% valuation discount to RMBS's 56.0x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, MGRC's 9.4x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than RMBS's 43.4x.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1.6B | $810M | $12.8B | $2.8B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $1.6B | $797M | $12.6B | $3.3B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -42.30x | -91.14x | 55.98x | 17.80x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 69.22x | 44.05x | 17.46x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | 2.02x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 37.84x | — | 43.42x | 9.41x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 4.87x | 7.57x | 18.05x | 2.94x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 4.00x | 2.99x | 9.50x | 2.25x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 221.44x | 1569.47x | 38.34x | 13.14x |
Profitability & Efficiency
RMBS leads this category, winning 7 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
RMBS delivers a 17.4% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $17 in annual profit, vs $-9 for TH. CEVA carries lower financial leverage with a 0.02x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to MGRC's 0.43x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), CEVA scores 6/9 vs TH's 5/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -9.2% | -4.2% | +17.4% | +12.8% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -6.9% | -3.7% | +15.5% | +6.6% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -5.8% | -2.3% | +17.1% | +10.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -6.8% | -2.7% | +19.5% | +11.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.03x | 0.02x | 0.03x | 0.43x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $2M | -$13M | -$139M | $528M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $8M | $18M | $183M | $295,000 |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $11M | $6M | $44M | $528M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -5.09x | — | 217.32x | 8.35x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
RMBS leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in RMBS five years ago would be worth $62,163 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $6,600 for CEVA. Over the past 12 months, RMBS leads with a +132.9% total return vs MGRC's +6.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors RMBS at 34.7% vs TH's 7.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +93.2% | +50.4% | +19.0% | +8.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +115.6% | +26.7% | +132.9% | +6.0% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +25.4% | +31.6% | +144.4% | +31.6% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +458.9% | -34.0% | +521.6% | +51.1% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +58.9% | +29.9% | +953.1% | +393.0% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +7.8% | +9.6% | +34.7% | +9.6% |
Risk & Volatility
TH leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
TH is the less volatile stock with a 0.79 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than RMBS's 3.00 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. TH currently trades 97.1% from its 52-week high vs RMBS's 73.0% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.79x | 2.76x | 3.00x | 0.87x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $16.12 | $34.82 | $161.80 | $128.41 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $5.97 | $17.02 | $49.29 | $94.99 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +97.1% | +96.8% | +73.0% | +88.0% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 67.2 | 75.9 | 47.8 | 47.4 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.1M | 487K | 2.2M | 212K |
Analyst Outlook
MGRC leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: TH as "Buy", CEVA as "Buy", RMBS as "Buy", MGRC as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 23.8% upside for MGRC (target: $140) vs -13.0% for CEVA (target: $29). MGRC is the only dividend payer here at 1.72% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $14.50 | $29.33 | $135.67 | $140.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 6 | 23 | 14 | 5 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | +1.7% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 2 | — | — | 36 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | $1.94 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +1.0% | +0.1% | 0.0% |
RMBS leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). MGRC leads in 2 (Valuation Metrics, Analyst Outlook).
TH vs CEVA vs RMBS vs MGRC: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is TH or CEVA or RMBS or MGRC a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Rambus Inc.
(RMBS) is the stronger pick with 27. 1% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -17. 0% for Target Hospitality Corp. (TH). McGrath RentCorp (MGRC) offers the better valuation at 17. 8x trailing P/E (17. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Target Hospitality Corp. (TH) a "Buy" — based on 6 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 — TH or CEVA or RMBS or MGRC?
On trailing P/E, McGrath RentCorp (MGRC) is the cheapest at 17.
8x versus Rambus Inc. at 56. 0x. On forward P/E, McGrath RentCorp is actually cheaper at 17. 5x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — TH or CEVA or RMBS or MGRC?
Over the past 5 years, Rambus Inc.
(RMBS) delivered a total return of +521. 6%, compared to -34. 0% for CEVA, Inc. (CEVA). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: RMBS returned +1041% versus CEVA's +32. 7%. 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 — TH or CEVA or RMBS or MGRC?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Target Hospitality Corp.
(TH) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 79β versus Rambus Inc. 's 3. 00β — meaning RMBS is approximately 279% more volatile than TH relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, CEVA, Inc. (CEVA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 2% versus 43% for McGrath RentCorp — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — TH or CEVA or RMBS or MGRC?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Rambus Inc.
(RMBS) is pulling ahead at 27. 1% versus -17. 0% for Target Hospitality Corp. (TH). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Rambus Inc. grew EPS 27. 9% year-over-year, compared to -152. 9% for Target Hospitality Corp.. Over a 3-year CAGR, RMBS leads at 15. 9% 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 — TH or CEVA or RMBS or MGRC?
Rambus Inc.
(RMBS) is the more profitable company, earning 32. 6% net margin versus -11. 6% for Target Hospitality Corp. — meaning it keeps 32. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: RMBS leads at 36. 8% versus -10. 0% for TH. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CEVA leads at 88. 1%, 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 TH or CEVA or RMBS or MGRC more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, McGrath RentCorp (MGRC) trades at 17.
5x forward P/E versus 69. 2x for CEVA, Inc. — 51. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for MGRC: 23. 8% to $140. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — TH or CEVA or RMBS or MGRC?
In this comparison, MGRC (1.
7% yield) pays a dividend. TH, CEVA, RMBS do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is TH or CEVA or RMBS or MGRC better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, McGrath RentCorp (MGRC) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
87), 1. 7% yield, +394. 1% 10Y return). CEVA, Inc. (CEVA) carries a higher beta of 2. 76 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (MGRC: +394. 1%, CEVA: +32. 7%), 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 TH and CEVA and RMBS and MGRC?
These companies operate in different sectors (TH (Industrials) and CEVA (Technology) and RMBS (Technology) and MGRC (Industrials)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: TH is a small-cap quality compounder stock; CEVA is a small-cap quality compounder stock; RMBS is a mid-cap high-growth stock; MGRC is a small-cap deep-value stock. MGRC pays a dividend while TH, CEVA, RMBS 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.