Equifax Inc. (EFX)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicEFX trades at 33.3x earnings, roughly in line with its sector average of 44.7x. Financial health metrics are strong: Piotroski 7/9, Altman Z 3.3 (above 3.0 safe zone threshold).
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedEquifax Inc. demonstrates robust fundamental quality, characterized by a Piotroski F-Score of 7 and a Beneish M-Score of -2.84 that collectively signal strong financial health with low earnings manipulation risk. The return on equity of 13.9% is primarily driven by operational efficiency rather than leverage; the DuPont decomposition reveals that while an Equity Multiplier of 2.50x provides some amplification, the core engine consists of healthy net margins at 10.9% and moderate asset turnover of 0.51x. Although the ROIC-WACC spread is not explicitly quantified in the provided data, the combination of a high gross margin of 56.5%, consistent revenue growth of 6.9% YoY, and superior integrity scores suggests a business with durable competitive advantages and stable cash flow generation typical of a high-quality industrial firm.
Valuation analysis presents a mixed picture relative to historical norms and sector peers. The current P/E ratio of 33.3x trades at a significant discount compared to the Industrials sector average of 44.2x, implying the market may be underweighting the company's specific growth prospects or risk profile despite its strong fundamentals. A discounted cash flow model estimates a fair value of $130 per share; however, this metric must be weighed against the current multiple which suggests the stock is priced for continued execution rather than immediate mean reversion to sector averages. The data indicates that while the valuation appears attractive on a relative basis compared to peers, it remains elevated when considering only the provided growth trajectory without explicit forward rate assumptions.
Insider activity introduces a notable divergence from the otherwise positive fundamental narrative. Over the past 90 days, insiders have executed net selling totaling $9.98 million, which warrants close scrutiny given the company's strong operational metrics and low manipulation scores. This capital outflow could reflect portfolio rebalancing or lack of near-term upside visibility at current levels, contrasting with the Piotroski score that typically correlates with insider confidence in long-term value creation. The interplay between high-quality fundamentals, a discounted valuation relative to peers, and significant recent insider selling creates an ambiguous risk-reward profile where macroeconomic assumptions regarding future growth rates will be critical determinants of total return potential.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 10.6% | 12.6% | 14.6% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $155 | $119 | $94 |
| 3% | $174 | $130 | $101 |
| 4% | $199 | $144 | $110 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=12.6%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $130 (+0.0%). Not investment advice.
Valuation Context
Price Chart with Moving Averages
Quant Health Deep Dive
Profitability & Value Creation
✅ Conservative payout — room for dividend increases.
DuPont Analysis — ROE Decomposition
Breaking down Return on Equity to see how the company generates its ROE — efficiency, margins, or leverage.
Balance Sheet Health
Insider Activity (Last 90 Days)
Open-market buys vs sells by company insiders. Source: yfinance.
Earnings Surprise History
EPS estimates vs actuals for the most recent reported quarters. Source: yfinance.
Underwater (Drawdown from Peak)
How far below the all-time high the price has been over time. Deeper = more pain for holders.
Rolling 60-Day Beta vs S&P 500 (VOO)
How the stock's sensitivity to market moves changes over time. β > 1 = more volatile than the market.
Fundamentals
Passive Flow Attribution
ETF Draft EffectWhen investors buy or sell ETFs like MOAT or VOT, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell EFX shares regardless of Equifax Inc.'s individual fundamentals. We estimate $3.1B of passive capital is structurally linked to EFX through 8 tracked ETFs. Index rebalances and ETF creation/redemption cycles can create noticeable volume spikes unrelated to company news.
Passive exposure = Σ (ETF AUM × stock weight in ETF) across 8 tracked ETFs. Actual passive ownership is larger (includes mutual funds). Not investment advice.
ETF Contagion Visualizer
Simulate a price drop in Equifax Inc. to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If Equifax Inc. (EFX) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies CATERPILLAR INC (CAT) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 1 ETFs with EFX. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 33 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
EFX Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest EFX Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 34 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
EFX Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does Equifax Inc. convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
Equifax Inc. converts 62% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, an exceptional conversion rate indicating an asset-light business model with minimal capital reinvestment drag. However, the ROIC-WACC spread is negative (-3.4%), suggesting reinvested capital is destroying shareholder value.
Capital efficiency = Free Cash Flow ÷ EBITDA. Reinvestment = (EBITDA − FCF) ÷ EBITDA. Metrics from latest annual filings. Not investment advice.
Fails-to-Deliver (FTD) History
SEC-reported settlement failures. Elevated FTDs can indicate high short-selling pressure, operational settlement issues, or naked shorting activity.
| Date | Failed Shares | Close Price | Notional Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-13 | 274 | $166.76 | $45,692.24 |
| 2026-05-05 | 4 | $172.24 | $688.96 |
| 2026-04-23 | 1 | $178.66 | $178.66 |
| 2026-04-09 | 157 | $184.38 | $28,947.66 |
| 2026-03-25 | 12 | $169.50 | $2,034 |
| 2026-03-24 | 5,628 | $179.65 | $1.0M |
| 2026-03-23 | 6 | $178.02 | $1,068.12 |
| 2026-03-17 | 4,192 | $185.18 | $776,274.56 |
| 2026-03-10 | 1,082 | $204.61 | $221,388.02 |
| 2026-03-03 | 945 | $208.03 | $196,588.35 |
| 2026-02-24 | 161 | $188.43 | $30,337.23 |
| 2026-02-23 | 56 | $197.46 | $11,057.76 |
| 2026-02-19 | 122 | $192.59 | $23,495.98 |
| 2026-02-17 | 86 | $192.80 | $16,580.8 |
| 2026-02-13 | 4,308 | $188.18 | $810,679.44 |
| 2026-02-12 | 26 | $197.60 | $5,137.6 |
| 2026-02-11 | 10,502 | $202.71 | $2.1M |
| 2026-02-10 | 21,523 | $199.59 | $4.3M |
| 2026-02-06 | 25,840 | $191.01 | $4.9M |
| 2026-02-05 | 348 | $181.04 | $63,001.92 |
| 2026-01-02 | 1,132 | $216.98 | $245,621.36 |
| 2025-12-29 | 46 | $222.06 | $10,214.76 |
| 2025-12-22 | 53 | $219.16 | $11,615.48 |
| 2025-12-16 | 105,848 | $217.02 | $23.0M |
| 2025-12-11 | 282 | $215.18 | $60,680.76 |
| 2025-12-10 | 3 | $209.02 | $627.06 |
| 2025-12-02 | 17,212 | $208.94 | $3.6M |
| 2025-11-26 | 348 | $214.88 | $74,778.24 |
| 2025-11-20 | 1,377 | $206.26 | $284,020.02 |
| 2025-11-18 | 23,213 | $204.86 | $4.8M |
Source: SEC Regulation SHO FTD data. Data is reported with a ~30 day delay. High FTD quantities relative to average daily volume may indicate settlement stress.
Compare EFX to Peers
Quant metrics computed deterministically from financial statements and price data. Updated: N/A.
SecuritiesDB provides programmatic data aggregation for informational purposes only. None of the metrics, summaries, or algorithmic flags constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any security.