Charles River Associates (CRAI) Competitors

Charles River Associates has a beta of 0.69, meaning that its share price is 31% less volatile than the broader market. Comparatively, Cross Country Healthcare has a beta of 0.45, meaning that its share price is 55% less volatile than the broader market.

Charles River Associates has a net margin of 6.22% compared to Cross Country Healthcare's net margin of -9.84%. Charles River Associates' return on equity of 26.02% beat Cross Country Healthcare's return on equity.

Charles River Associates currently has a consensus target price of $245.00, indicating a potential upside of 62.82%. Cross Country Healthcare has a consensus target price of $12.05, indicating a potential downside of 8.50%. Given Charles River Associates' stronger consensus rating and higher probable upside, analysts clearly believe Charles River Associates is more favorable than Cross Country Healthcare.

Charles River Associates has higher earnings, but lower revenue than Cross Country Healthcare. Cross Country Healthcare is trading at a lower price-to-earnings ratio than Charles River Associates, indicating that it is currently the more affordable of the two stocks.

84.1% of Charles River Associates shares are held by institutional investors. Comparatively, 96.0% of Cross Country Healthcare shares are held by institutional investors. 4.5% of Charles River Associates shares are held by insiders. Comparatively, 6.3% of Cross Country Healthcare shares are held by insiders. Strong institutional ownership is an indication that endowments, hedge funds and large money managers believe a company is poised for long-term growth.

In the previous week, Cross Country Healthcare had 2 more articles in the media than Charles River Associates. MarketBeat recorded 3 mentions for Cross Country Healthcare and 1 mentions for Charles River Associates. Charles River Associates' average media sentiment score of 0.93 beat Cross Country Healthcare's score of 0.44 indicating that Charles River Associates is being referred to more favorably in the media.

Charles River Associates has a beta of 0.69, suggesting that its stock price is 31% less volatile than the broader market. Comparatively, Booz Allen Hamilton has a beta of 0.32, suggesting that its stock price is 68% less volatile than the broader market.

Booz Allen Hamilton has a net margin of 7.59% compared to Charles River Associates' net margin of 6.22%. Booz Allen Hamilton's return on equity of 76.07% beat Charles River Associates' return on equity.

Booz Allen Hamilton has higher revenue and earnings than Charles River Associates. Booz Allen Hamilton is trading at a lower price-to-earnings ratio than Charles River Associates, indicating that it is currently the more affordable of the two stocks.

In the previous week, Booz Allen Hamilton had 3 more articles in the media than Charles River Associates. MarketBeat recorded 4 mentions for Booz Allen Hamilton and 1 mentions for Charles River Associates. Charles River Associates' average media sentiment score of 0.93 beat Booz Allen Hamilton's score of 0.92 indicating that Charles River Associates is being referred to more favorably in the media.

84.1% of Charles River Associates shares are held by institutional investors. Comparatively, 91.8% of Booz Allen Hamilton shares are held by institutional investors. 4.5% of Charles River Associates shares are held by insiders. Comparatively, 0.9% of Booz Allen Hamilton shares are held by insiders. Strong institutional ownership is an indication that large money managers, hedge funds and endowments believe a stock will outperform the market over the long term.

Charles River Associates pays an annual dividend of $2.28 per share and has a dividend yield of 1.5%. Booz Allen Hamilton pays an annual dividend of $2.36 per share and has a dividend yield of 3.1%. Charles River Associates pays out 31.7% of its earnings in the form of a dividend. Booz Allen Hamilton pays out 34.3% of its earnings in the form of a dividend. Both companies have healthy payout ratios and should be able to cover their dividend payments with earnings for the next several years. Charles River Associates has increased its dividend for 7 consecutive years and Booz Allen Hamilton has increased its dividend for 14 consecutive years. Booz Allen Hamilton is clearly the better dividend stock, given its higher yield and longer track record of dividend growth.

Charles River Associates presently has a consensus price target of $245.00, suggesting a potential upside of 62.82%. Booz Allen Hamilton has a consensus price target of $88.00, suggesting a potential upside of 13.96%. Given Charles River Associates' stronger consensus rating and higher possible upside, equities analysts clearly believe Charles River Associates is more favorable than Booz Allen Hamilton.

In the previous week, Equifax had 20 more articles in the media than Charles River Associates. MarketBeat recorded 21 mentions for Equifax and 1 mentions for Charles River Associates. Equifax's average media sentiment score of 1.08 beat Charles River Associates' score of 0.93 indicating that Equifax is being referred to more favorably in the news media.

Charles River Associates currently has a consensus price target of $245.00, indicating a potential upside of 62.82%. Equifax has a consensus price target of $226.67, indicating a potential upside of 38.58%. Given Charles River Associates' higher probable upside, equities analysts plainly believe Charles River Associates is more favorable than Equifax.

84.1% of Charles River Associates shares are owned by institutional investors. Comparatively, 96.2% of Equifax shares are owned by institutional investors. 4.5% of Charles River Associates shares are owned by company insiders. Comparatively, 1.7% of Equifax shares are owned by company insiders. Strong institutional ownership is an indication that hedge funds, endowments and large money managers believe a stock is poised for long-term growth.

Charles River Associates pays an annual dividend of $2.28 per share and has a dividend yield of 1.5%. Equifax pays an annual dividend of $2.24 per share and has a dividend yield of 1.4%. Charles River Associates pays out 31.7% of its earnings in the form of a dividend. Equifax pays out 39.4% of its earnings in the form of a dividend. Both companies have healthy payout ratios and should be able to cover their dividend payments with earnings for the next several years. Charles River Associates has raised its dividend for 7 consecutive years and Equifax has raised its dividend for 1 consecutive years. Charles River Associates is clearly the better dividend stock, given its higher yield and longer track record of dividend growth.

Charles River Associates has a beta of 0.69, indicating that its stock price is 31% less volatile than the broader market. Comparatively, Equifax has a beta of 1.32, indicating that its stock price is 32% more volatile than the broader market.

Equifax has a net margin of 11.12% compared to Charles River Associates' net margin of 6.22%. Charles River Associates' return on equity of 26.02% beat Equifax's return on equity.

Equifax has higher revenue and earnings than Charles River Associates. Charles River Associates is trading at a lower price-to-earnings ratio than Equifax, indicating that it is currently the more affordable of the two stocks.

In the previous week, FTI Consulting had 11 more articles in the media than Charles River Associates. MarketBeat recorded 12 mentions for FTI Consulting and 1 mentions for Charles River Associates. FTI Consulting's average media sentiment score of 1.30 beat Charles River Associates' score of 0.93 indicating that FTI Consulting is being referred to more favorably in the news media.

Charles River Associates has a beta of 0.69, meaning that its stock price is 31% less volatile than the broader market. Comparatively, FTI Consulting has a beta of -0.05, meaning that its stock price is 105% less volatile than the broader market.

84.1% of Charles River Associates shares are owned by institutional investors. Comparatively, 99.4% of FTI Consulting shares are owned by institutional investors. 4.5% of Charles River Associates shares are owned by insiders. Comparatively, 1.8% of FTI Consulting shares are owned by insiders. Strong institutional ownership is an indication that endowments, hedge funds and large money managers believe a stock will outperform the market over the long term.

FTI Consulting has higher revenue and earnings than Charles River Associates. FTI Consulting is trading at a lower price-to-earnings ratio than Charles River Associates, indicating that it is currently the more affordable of the two stocks.

Charles River Associates presently has a consensus price target of $245.00, suggesting a potential upside of 62.82%. FTI Consulting has a consensus price target of $174.50, suggesting a potential upside of 10.13%. Given Charles River Associates' stronger consensus rating and higher probable upside, equities research analysts plainly believe Charles River Associates is more favorable than FTI Consulting.

FTI Consulting has a net margin of 6.88% compared to Charles River Associates' net margin of 6.22%. Charles River Associates' return on equity of 26.02% beat FTI Consulting's return on equity.