Vertiv Holdings Co (VRT): fair value

Fair-value band

The normal range for this name runs from $264 (cheap) to $531 (expensive); it is now priced at $194.

That is 2.3σ below this name's own normal premium.

Is Vertiv Holdings Co undervalued?

Cheap, relative to its own history. Vertiv Holdings Co trades at $194, 30% above the fair value this model estimates, but it has habitually traded 166% above fair value, and today's gap is 2.3σ below that norm, wider than the range it normally trades in, so the verdict is Cheap: priced further below its own norm than usual, not just below the model's fair value.

Diligence checklist

5 pass · 3 fail · 3 no data

• PASSCash actually collected from profit, median of the last 3 years: 205%XBRL · Over the last three years Vertiv Holdings Co has typically got $2.05 of real cash for every $1 of reported profit, which means profits are real and not just numbers on paper. That's a good sign.
• FAILGap between paper profit and real cash: -12.3%XBRL · Vertiv Holdings Co collected more cash than it booked as profit, by 12.3% of everything it owns. That is the conservative direction, but it is far enough past my 5% line to flag: a gap this wide usually means something large and non-cash is running through the earnings, and I want to know what it is before I trust the profit figure.
• PASSDebt compared to one year of cash earnings: 0.05xXBRL · Vertiv Holdings Co could pay off everything it owes, net of the cash it holds, with 0.05 of a single year's earnings. My limit for a name I would buy is three years, so debt is not a risk here.
• PASSHow much more it earns on capital than that capital costs: +5.94ppXBRL · Vertiv Holdings Co earns 5.9 points more on the capital it employs than that capital costs. The gap is real but not wide, so growth here creates value at a modest rate rather than compounding it. The gap is wider than it was at the start of the window.
• PASSStock sold by executives and directors on the open market, last 6 months: $0.0MEDGAR · Nobody running Vertiv Holdings Co sold a single share on the open market in the last 6 months. That is the alignment I want: the people with the most information about the business are keeping their money in it. A further $3.9M went out under pre-planned 10b5-1 schedules, which I don't count: those sales are set up months ahead and say nothing about what management thinks today. Options being exercised, and shares held back to cover the tax on them, are not sales and I don't count them either.
• FAILHow long the CEO has run this company: 3.8 yearsTEXT · Vertiv Holdings Co's chief executive took the job on January 1, 2023, 3.8 years ago. I want a full cycle at the company, which I take as 5 years, before a management record tells me anything: a short run has not yet been tested by a bad year. filing ↗
• N/AProfit margin held up during the last sales slump: n/aXBRL · There's no revenue downturn in Vertiv Holdings Co's filed record, or gross profit isn't tagged, so this test has nothing to measure. It needs a bad patch to look at: without one, whether customers would stay through a price rise is untested rather than proven.
• FAILNormal profit margin across a full business cycle: FCF margin 25.9% vs 13.9% medianXBRL · Vertiv Holdings Co is earning a 25.9% cash margin against a long-run average of 13.9%, 87% better than normal. This is what a cycle peak looks like, and paying for peak margins as though they were permanent is the classic way to overpay for a good business. My valuation grows the average instead. Across the window the margin ran between -5.2% in September 2022 and 25.9% in June 2026.
• N/AHow much of the stock trades on an average day: $1,246MMARKET · Vertiv Holdings Co trades so much volume that this basically isn't a concern. There's no pass or fail here because the answer depends on how big a position I'd actually want to take.
• N/AShare of revenue from its single biggest customer: not establishedTEXT · I fetched and read Vertiv Holdings Co's February 13, 2026 10-K but found no sentence about customer concentration. That isn't the same as the filing saying there is none: it may simply be worded in a way my search doesn't catch. Read Item 1 and the concentration-of-risk note yourself before trusting this row. filing ↗
• PASSWhether the company switched auditors in the last 2 years: noneEDGAR · Companies sometimes switch accounting auditors right before something bad is uncovered which can be a warning sign. Vertiv Holdings Co hasn't changed auditors in the last 2 years, so there's no such red flag here.