Aebi Schmidt vs Manitowoc
AEBI and MTW side by side, both in construction, mining, and materials handling. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How AEBI and MTW compare
Aebi Schmidt and Manitowoc are about the same size, with market caps of $804M and $859M.
On earnings, Aebi Schmidt is cheaper: it trades at 25.9× trailing earnings, against 33.5× for Manitowoc.
Aebi Schmidt grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (52.2% versus 10.2% for Manitowoc).
Aebi Schmidt keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 1.6% compared with 1.1% at Manitowoc.
Aebi Schmidt pays a dividend yielding 1.2%; Manitowoc does not pay one.
Aebi Schmidt scores higher on the StockData Score (9 against 5 for Manitowoc), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | AEBI | MTW |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $804M | $859M |
| Share price | $10.36 | $23.81 |
| Change, 1 year | −3.4% | 109% |
| Change, 5 years | – | 18.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.38 | 1.41 |
| Employees | 5,700 | 4,700 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 (better) | 5 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 1 | 1 |
| Performance score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 1 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 25.9× (better) | 33.5× |
| P/S | 0.4× | 0.4× (better) |
| P/B | 1.0× (better) | 1.2× |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.7× (better) | 8.7× |
| P/FCF | 40.4× | 17.4× (better) |
| FCF yield | 2.5% | 5.7% (better) |
| Fair value | $13.36 | $23.19 |
| Margin of safety | 22.5% (better) | −2.7% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 52.2% (better) | 10.2% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | – | 9.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 195% (better) | −54.0% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 66.7% (better) | −53.6% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 19.2% (better) | 19.1% |
| Operating margin | 4.7% (better) | 3.6% |
| Net margin | 1.6% (better) | 1.1% |
| FCF margin | 1.0% | 2.1% (better) |
| Return on equity | 3.7% | 3.8% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 4.8% (better) | 4.6% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.70 | 0.67 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.34 | 2.83 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 2.1× | – |
| Current ratio | 2.08 | 2.11 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.89 | 2.36 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.2% | – |
| Payout ratio | 25.1% | 0.00% |
| Years of dividend growth | 2 | – |
| Shareholder yield | 1.2% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | – | 83.9% |
| Held by insiders | 66.6% | 5.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $349K (better) | −$106K |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.5% | 5.1% |
Go deeper
- AEBI stock overview
- AEBI income statement
- AEBI valuation and score
- MTW stock overview
- MTW income statement
- MTW valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.