Electrical Equipment & Parts
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
VRT vs RBC vs EMR vs ETN vs ROK
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Manufacturing - Tools & Accessories
Industrial - Machinery
Industrial - Machinery
Industrial - Machinery
VRT vs RBC vs EMR vs ETN vs ROK — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Electrical Equipment & Parts | Manufacturing - Tools & Accessories | Industrial - Machinery | Industrial - Machinery | Industrial - Machinery |
| Market Cap | $130.64B | $20.01B | $79.02B | $155.02B | $50.37B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $10.84B | $1.79B | $18.32B | $28.52B | $8.80B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $1.56B | $269M | $2.44B | $3.99B | $1.09B |
| Gross Margin | 36.2% | 44.3% | 52.7% | 36.9% | 52.5% |
| Operating Margin | 18.5% | 23.8% | 19.8% | 18.1% | 19.1% |
| Forward P/E | 53.0x | 49.8x | 21.7x | 30.1x | 35.4x |
| Total Debt | $3.40B | $1.03B | $13.76B | $11.17B | $3.65B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $1.73B | $37M | $1.54B | $622M | $468M |
VRT vs RBC vs EMR vs ETN vs ROK — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vertiv Holdings Co (VRT) | 100 | 2670.6 | +2570.6% |
| RBC Bearings Incorp… (RBC) | 100 | 761.9 | +661.9% |
| Emerson Electric Co. (EMR) | 100 | 231.5 | +131.5% |
| Eaton Corporation p… (ETN) | 100 | 472.9 | +372.9% |
| Rockwell Automation… (ROK) | 100 | 210.0 | +110.0% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: VRT vs RBC vs EMR vs ETN vs ROK
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
VRT carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 27.7%, EPS growth 166.4%, 3Y rev CAGR 21.6%
- 33.6% 10Y total return vs RBC's 8.7%
- 27.7% revenue growth vs ROK's 1.0%
- +256.3% vs EMR's +30.4%
RBC is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if sleep-well-at-night and defensive is your priority.
- Lower volatility, beta 1.05, Low D/E 33.9%, current ratio 3.26x
- Beta 1.05, yield 0.1%, current ratio 3.26x
- 15.0% margin vs ROK's 12.4%
- Beta 1.05 vs VRT's 2.42, lower leverage
EMR ranks third and is worth considering specifically for income & stability.
- Dividend streak 37 yrs, beta 1.52, yield 1.5%
- Lower P/E (21.7x vs 35.4x)
- 1.5% yield, 37-year raise streak, vs VRT's 0.1%
ETN is the clearest fit if your priority is valuation efficiency.
- PEG 1.23 vs RBC's 5.68
Among these 5 stocks, ROK doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 27.7% revenue growth vs ROK's 1.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (21.7x vs 35.4x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 15.0% margin vs ROK's 12.4% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.05 vs VRT's 2.42, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 1.5% yield, 37-year raise streak, vs VRT's 0.1% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +256.3% vs EMR's +30.4% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 13.3% ROA vs RBC's 5.2%, ROIC 28.1% vs 6.9% |
VRT vs RBC vs EMR vs ETN vs ROK — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
VRT vs RBC vs EMR vs ETN vs ROK — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
VRT leads in 3 of 6 categories
EMR leads 2 • RBC leads 1 • ETN leads 0 • ROK leads 0
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
VRT leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ETN is the larger business by revenue, generating $28.5B annually — 15.9x RBC's $1.8B. Profitability is closely matched — net margins range from 15.0% (RBC) to 12.4% (ROK). On growth, VRT holds the edge at +30.1% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $10.8B | $1.8B | $18.3B | $28.5B | $8.8B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $2.4B | $548M | $4.7B | $5.9B | $1.9B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $1.6B | $269M | $2.4B | $4.0B | $1.1B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $2.3B | $330M | $3.1B | $4.7B | $1.3B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +36.2% | +44.3% | +52.7% | +36.9% | +52.5% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +18.5% | +23.8% | +19.8% | +18.1% | +19.1% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +14.4% | +15.0% | +13.3% | +14.0% | +12.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +21.3% | +18.4% | +17.0% | +16.5% | +15.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +30.1% | +17.0% | +2.9% | +16.8% | +11.8% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +135.7% | +17.0% | +28.2% | -9.4% | +39.6% |
Valuation Metrics
EMR leads this category, winning 6 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 34.9x trailing earnings, EMR trades at a 65% valuation discount to VRT's 99.7x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), ETN offers better value at 1.55x vs RBC's 9.07x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $130.6B | $20.0B | $79.0B | $155.0B | $50.4B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $132.3B | $21.0B | $91.2B | $165.6B | $53.6B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 99.74x | 79.45x | 34.92x | 38.17x | 58.45x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 52.95x | 49.78x | 21.70x | 30.11x | 35.38x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 9.07x | 7.73x | 1.55x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 59.99x | 42.86x | 18.07x | 27.69x | 30.64x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 12.77x | 12.23x | 4.39x | 5.65x | 6.04x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 33.71x | 6.13x | 3.94x | 7.99x | 13.66x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 68.98x | 82.06x | 29.63x | 34.67x | 37.09x |
Profitability & Efficiency
VRT leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
VRT delivers a 42.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $42 in annual profit, vs $8 for RBC. RBC carries lower financial leverage with a 0.34x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to ROK's 0.98x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), ROK scores 8/9 vs VRT's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +42.1% | +8.2% | +12.1% | +20.8% | +29.6% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +13.3% | +5.2% | +5.8% | +9.0% | +9.7% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +28.1% | +6.9% | +8.2% | +13.6% | +15.1% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +27.4% | +8.5% | +10.0% | +16.8% | +18.5% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 8 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.86x | 0.34x | 0.68x | 0.57x | 0.98x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $1.7B | $992M | $12.2B | $10.5B | $3.2B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $1.7B | $37M | $1.5B | $622M | $468M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $3.4B | $1.0B | $13.8B | $11.2B | $3.6B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 32.96x | 7.78x | 6.46x | 16.38x | 9.06x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
VRT leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in VRT five years ago would be worth $147,982 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $15,945 for EMR. Over the past 12 months, VRT leads with a +256.3% total return vs EMR's +30.4%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors VRT at 182.6% vs ROK's 18.2% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +93.7% | +33.3% | +4.3% | +22.3% | +12.8% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +256.3% | +78.8% | +30.4% | +33.2% | +60.2% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +2157.9% | +173.5% | +75.9% | +141.3% | +65.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +1379.8% | +307.0% | +59.5% | +182.8% | +74.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +3357.0% | +867.2% | +206.6% | +608.7% | +341.0% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +182.6% | +39.9% | +20.7% | +34.1% | +18.2% |
Risk & Volatility
RBC leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
RBC is the less volatile stock with a 1.05 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than VRT's 2.42 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. RBC currently trades 96.8% from its 52-week high vs EMR's 85.4% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 2.46x | 1.04x | 1.57x | 1.45x | 1.38x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $359.55 | $632.00 | $165.15 | $435.43 | $463.49 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $91.84 | $339.53 | $108.37 | $296.93 | $277.66 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +94.6% | +96.8% | +85.4% | +91.7% | +96.7% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 73.6 | 66.1 | 61.3 | 59.8 | 74.9 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 6.9M | 176K | 2.8M | 2.5M | 831K |
Analyst Outlook
EMR leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: VRT as "Buy", RBC as "Buy", EMR as "Buy", ETN as "Buy", ROK as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 14.3% upside for EMR (target: $161) vs -6.4% for RBC (target: $573). For income investors, EMR offers the higher dividend yield at 1.49% vs ETN's 1.05%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $327.82 | $572.60 | $161.31 | $397.50 | $464.75 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 19 | 26 | 41 | 39 | 39 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +0.1% | +0.1% | +1.5% | +1.0% | +1.2% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 3 | 0 | 37 | 24 | 20 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.17 | $0.57 | $2.10 | $4.17 | $5.23 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +0.0% | +1.6% | +1.2% | +0.8% |
VRT leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). EMR leads in 2 (Valuation Metrics, Analyst Outlook).
VRT vs RBC vs EMR vs ETN vs ROK: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is VRT or RBC or EMR or ETN or ROK a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Vertiv Holdings Co (VRT) is the stronger pick with 27.
7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 1. 0% for Rockwell Automation, Inc. (ROK). Emerson Electric Co. (EMR) offers the better valuation at 34. 9x trailing P/E (21. 7x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Vertiv Holdings Co (VRT) 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 — VRT or RBC or EMR or ETN or ROK?
On trailing P/E, Emerson Electric Co.
(EMR) is the cheapest at 34. 9x versus Vertiv Holdings Co at 99. 7x. On forward P/E, Emerson Electric Co. is actually cheaper at 21. 7x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Eaton Corporation plc wins at 1. 23x versus RBC Bearings Incorporated's 5. 68x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.
03Which is the better long-term investment — VRT or RBC or EMR or ETN or ROK?
Over the past 5 years, Vertiv Holdings Co (VRT) delivered a total return of +1380%, compared to +59.
5% for Emerson Electric Co. (EMR). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: VRT returned +33. 6% versus EMR's +207. 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 — VRT or RBC or EMR or ETN or ROK?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), RBC Bearings Incorporated (RBC) is the lower-risk stock at 1.
04β versus Vertiv Holdings Co's 2. 46β — meaning VRT is approximately 136% more volatile than RBC relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, RBC Bearings Incorporated (RBC) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 34% versus 98% for Rockwell Automation, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — VRT or RBC or EMR or ETN or ROK?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Vertiv Holdings Co (VRT) is pulling ahead at 27.
7% versus 1. 0% for Rockwell Automation, Inc. (ROK). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Vertiv Holdings Co grew EPS 166. 4% year-over-year, compared to -7. 4% for Rockwell Automation, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, VRT leads at 21. 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 — VRT or RBC or EMR or ETN or ROK?
RBC Bearings Incorporated (RBC) is the more profitable company, earning 15.
0% net margin versus 10. 4% for Rockwell Automation, Inc. — meaning it keeps 15. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: RBC leads at 22. 6% versus 17. 1% for ROK. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — EMR leads at 52. 8%, 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 VRT or RBC or EMR or ETN or ROK 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, Eaton Corporation plc (ETN) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 23x versus RBC Bearings Incorporated's 5. 68x. 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 53. 0x for Vertiv Holdings Co — 31. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for EMR: 14. 3% to $161. 31.
08Which pays a better dividend — VRT or RBC or EMR or ETN or ROK?
In this comparison, EMR (1.
5% yield), ROK (1. 2% yield), ETN (1. 0% yield) pay a dividend. VRT, RBC do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is VRT or RBC or EMR or ETN or ROK better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, RBC Bearings Incorporated (RBC) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1.
04), +858. 0% 10Y return). Vertiv Holdings Co (VRT) carries a higher beta of 2. 46 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (RBC: +858. 0%, VRT: +33. 6%), 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 VRT and RBC and EMR and ETN and ROK?
Both stocks operate in the Industrials sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
In terms of investment character: VRT is a mid-cap high-growth stock; RBC is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; EMR is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; ETN is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; ROK is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. EMR, ETN, ROK pay a dividend while VRT, RBC 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.