Compare price, profitability, solvency, and SEC-reported financials side by side—before deciding which assumptions deserve a closer look.
Decision snapshot: AMN stock price vs LDOS: inconclusive Relative valuation is incomplete for this pair. Review the available filing metrics before drawing a conclusion.
Quick read
Each company valued on the other's multiple, then compared with the market price.
Implied fair value · at LDOS's multiple
Needs LDOS P/S.
Implied fair value · at AMN's multiple
Needs AMN P/S.
Price unavailable
Metric by metric
Where each company leads, and how wide the gap is.
Growth lag
Reported gross margin
Operating income + D&A
Lower is better
Not comparable
Lower leverage
Statements
Annual statements in reported currencies, with calculations and source evidence.
Values retain reported currencies and share bases. Select a figure to inspect its period, calculation and filing inputs. Differences require compatible units and periods.
Explore enterprise value and market valuation multiples in the valuation sections.
Trendline
Ten period-end years of reported revenue, earnings, and margins. Periods and currencies are shown with the data.
Price framework
USD market cap plus reported borrowing debt, less cash and equivalents. This EV proxy excludes investments, preferred stock and noncontrolling-interest adjustments.
Complete market value, debt and cash evidence is required for enterprise value.
Complete market value, debt and cash evidence is required for enterprise value.
Price framework
The same filing-backed model used on each company's valuation page, with company-specific inputs and calculated scenarios.
AMN HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC. · implied price per share
Debt and bridge-cash inputs are required to translate enterprise value into equity value.
Leidos Holdings, Inc. · implied price per share
Five annual free-cash-flow observations are required for the filing-backed baseline.
Balance sheet health
Inspect reported liquidity and leverage alongside historical financial-health checks.
Financial strength on a 0–9 scale.
Bankruptcy-risk signal from balance sheet and earnings power.
Not enough data to score either balance sheet.
Cash excludes investments. EBITDA is an operating-income-plus-D&A proxy. Missing borrowing categories remain unavailable; select a value to inspect its inputs.
Comparable set
Where the pair sits against the wider comparable set.
Keep comparing
Open adjacent comparisons from the same industry to pressure-test the read across multiple pairs.
ASGN Inc
AMN vs ASGN
INSPERITY, INC.
AMN vs NSP
KFORCE INC
AMN vs KFRC
KELLY SERVICES INC
AMN vs KELYA
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP
AMN vs IBM
Accenture plc
AMN vs ACN
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP
AMN vs LMT
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORP /DE/
AMN vs NOC
GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP
AMN vs GD
ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES CORP
AMN vs ZBRA
LLM-powered synthesis
An explanation of the financial evidence. Check its snapshot date against the figures above.
This explanation uses an earlier data snapshot or evidence version. Review its generation date and the current figures, or refresh after signing in.
If you believe AMN can stabilize revenue and turn its negative operating margin into sustainable profitability, then the stock looks attractive on the P/S-based upside because the current price is well below LDOS-implied $56.33; otherwise, the weaker growth, negative ROIC, and 9.2x net debt/EBITDA argue for caution.
AMN trades at $34.75 versus an implied price of $56.33, implying 62.1% upside on the provided P/S framework. However, LDOS comparison is not fully clean because AMN and LDOS have very different operating profiles and AMN’s weaker fundamentals help explain some of the discount.
Supporting Metrics
