Marine Shipping
Compare Stocks
2 / 10Stock Comparison
ZIM vs GSL
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Marine Shipping
ZIM vs GSL — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Industry | Marine Shipping | Marine Shipping |
| Market Cap | $3.15B | $1.47B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $6.90B | $760M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $479M | $416M |
| Gross Margin | 16.8% | 53.2% |
| Operating Margin | 12.3% | 54.9% |
| Forward P/E | 6.6x | 4.2x |
| Total Debt | $5.74B | $689M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $1.05B | $324M |
ZIM vs GSL — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jan 21 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| ZIM Integrated Ship… (ZIM) | 100 | 216.7 | +116.7% |
| Global Ship Lease, … (GSL) | 100 | 350.5 | +250.5% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: ZIM vs GSL
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
ZIM is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- 5.5% 10Y total return vs GSL's 262.2%
- 16.4% yield, vs GSL's 5.1%
- +106.6% vs GSL's +104.3%
GSL carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 5 yrs, beta 1.00, yield 5.1%
- Rev growth 8.6%, EPS growth 17.3%, 3Y rev CAGR 8.2%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.00, Low D/E 38.3%, current ratio 2.04x
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 8.6% revenue growth vs ZIM's -18.1% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (4.2x vs 6.6x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 54.8% margin vs ZIM's 6.9% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.00 vs ZIM's 1.33, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 16.4% yield, vs GSL's 5.1% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +106.6% vs GSL's +104.3% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 15.5% ROA vs ZIM's 4.3%, ROIC 14.0% vs 7.3% |
ZIM vs GSL — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
ZIM vs GSL — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 2 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
GSL leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ZIM is the larger business by revenue, generating $6.9B annually — 9.1x GSL's $760M. GSL is the more profitable business, keeping 54.8% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to ZIM's 6.9%. On growth, GSL holds the edge at +5.2% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $6.9B | $760M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $2.1B | $543M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $479M | $416M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $2.0B | $359M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +16.8% | +53.2% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +12.3% | +54.9% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +6.9% | +54.8% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +29.0% | +47.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -31.5% | +5.2% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -93.1% | +9.4% |
Valuation Metrics
ZIM leads this category, winning 3 of 5 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 3.6x trailing earnings, GSL trades at a 44% valuation discount to ZIM's 6.6x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, GSL's 3.5x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than ZIM's 3.7x.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $3.1B | $1.5B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $7.8B | $1.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 6.56x | 3.64x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 4.24x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 0.10x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 3.68x | 3.50x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.46x | 1.92x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.78x | 0.82x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 1.96x | 4.10x |
Profitability & Efficiency
GSL leads this category, winning 9 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
GSL delivers a 24.8% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $25 in annual profit, vs $12 for ZIM. GSL carries lower financial leverage with a 0.38x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to ZIM's 1.43x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), GSL scores 6/9 vs ZIM's 4/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +12.0% | +24.8% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +4.3% | +15.5% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +7.3% | +14.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +9.6% | +16.7% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 1.43x | 0.38x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $4.7B | $365M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $1.1B | $324M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $5.7B | $689M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 2.02x | 11.08x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — ZIM and GSL each lead in 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in GSL five years ago would be worth $33,258 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $18,830 for ZIM. Over the past 12 months, ZIM leads with a +106.6% total return vs GSL's +104.3%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors GSL at 37.0% vs ZIM's 26.9% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +23.2% | +20.7% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +106.6% | +104.3% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +104.5% | +157.4% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +88.3% | +232.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +548.1% | +262.2% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +26.9% | +37.0% |
Risk & Volatility
GSL leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
GSL is the less volatile stock with a 1.00 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than ZIM's 1.33 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. GSL currently trades 98.6% from its 52-week high vs ZIM's 87.1% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.33x | 1.00x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $29.97 | $42.14 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $12.33 | $21.26 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +87.1% | +98.6% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 61.3 | 64.1 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.8M | 352K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — ZIM and GSL each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Wall Street rates ZIM as "Hold" and GSL as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 8.4% upside for GSL (target: $45) vs -43.3% for ZIM (target: $15). For income investors, ZIM offers the higher dividend yield at 16.39% vs GSL's 5.13%.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $14.80 | $45.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 6 | 8 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +16.4% | +5.1% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 5 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $4.28 | $2.13 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% |
GSL leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). ZIM leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
ZIM vs GSL: Frequently Asked Questions
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is ZIM or GSL a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Global Ship Lease, Inc.
(GSL) is the stronger pick with 8. 6% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -18. 1% for ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Ltd. (ZIM). Global Ship Lease, Inc. (GSL) offers the better valuation at 3. 6x trailing P/E (4. 2x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Global Ship Lease, Inc. (GSL) a "Buy" — based on 8 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 — ZIM or GSL?
On trailing P/E, Global Ship Lease, Inc.
(GSL) is the cheapest at 3. 6x versus ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Ltd. at 6. 6x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — ZIM or GSL?
Over the past 5 years, Global Ship Lease, Inc.
(GSL) delivered a total return of +232. 6%, compared to +88. 3% for ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Ltd. (ZIM). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ZIM returned +548. 1% versus GSL's +262. 2%. 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 — ZIM or GSL?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Global Ship Lease, Inc.
(GSL) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 00β versus ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Ltd. 's 1. 33β — meaning ZIM is approximately 33% more volatile than GSL relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Global Ship Lease, Inc. (GSL) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 38% versus 143% for ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Ltd. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — ZIM or GSL?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Global Ship Lease, Inc.
(GSL) is pulling ahead at 8. 6% versus -18. 1% for ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Ltd. (ZIM). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Global Ship Lease, Inc. grew EPS 17. 3% year-over-year, compared to -77. 7% for ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Ltd.. Over a 3-year CAGR, GSL leads at 8. 2% 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 — ZIM or GSL?
Global Ship Lease, Inc.
(GSL) is the more profitable company, earning 54. 3% net margin versus 6. 9% for ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Ltd. — meaning it keeps 54. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: GSL leads at 50. 7% versus 12. 2% for ZIM. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — GSL leads at 53. 6%, 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 ZIM or GSL more undervalued right now?
Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for GSL: 8.
4% to $45. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — ZIM or GSL?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Ltd. (ZIM) offers the highest yield at 16. 4%, versus 5. 1% for Global Ship Lease, Inc. (GSL).
09Is ZIM or GSL better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Global Ship Lease, Inc.
(GSL) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1. 00), 5. 1% yield, +262. 2% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (GSL: +262. 2%, ZIM: +548. 1%), 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 ZIM and GSL?
Both stocks operate in the Industrials sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
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 both.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.