Aebi Schmidt vs Douglas Dynamics
AEBI and PLOW 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 PLOW compare
Aebi Schmidt and Douglas Dynamics are about the same size, with market caps of $804M and $864M.
On earnings, Douglas Dynamics is cheaper: it trades at 17.0× trailing earnings, against 25.9× for Aebi Schmidt.
Aebi Schmidt grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (52.2% versus 20.1% for Douglas Dynamics).
Douglas Dynamics keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 7.5% compared with 1.6% at Aebi Schmidt.
Both pay dividends: Aebi Schmidt yields 1.2% and Douglas Dynamics 3.2%.
Douglas Dynamics scores higher on the StockData Score (21 against 9 for Aebi Schmidt), 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 | PLOW |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $804M | $864M |
| Share price | $10.36 | $37.44 |
| Change, 1 year | −3.4% | 19.4% |
| Change, 5 years | – | −16.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.38 | 0.84 |
| Employees | 5,700 | 1,764 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 21 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 | 4 |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 25.9× | 17.0× (better) |
| P/S | 0.4× (better) | 1.2× |
| P/B | 1.0× (better) | 2.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.7× (better) | 9.8× |
| P/FCF | 40.4× | 17.6× (better) |
| PEG | – | 2.69 |
| FCF yield | 2.5% | 5.7% (better) |
| Fair value | $13.36 | $41.56 |
| Margin of safety | 22.5% (better) | 9.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 52.2% (better) | 20.1% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | – | 6.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 195% (better) | −20.7% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 66.7% (better) | −20.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 19.2% | 27.3% (better) |
| Operating margin | 4.7% | 11.3% (better) |
| Net margin | 1.6% | 7.5% (better) |
| FCF margin | 1.0% | 7.0% (better) |
| Return on equity | 3.7% | 18.3% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 4.8% | 17.9% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.70 | 0.21 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.34 | 0.66 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 2.1× | – |
| Current ratio | 2.08 | 2.16 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.89 | 3.08 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.2% | 3.2% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 25.1% | 53.7% |
| Years of dividend growth | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 1.0% |
| Buyback yield | – | 0.69% |
| Shareholder yield | 1.2% | 3.8% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | – | 94.8% |
| Held by insiders | 66.6% | 2.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $349K (better) | −$78.7K |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.5% | 2.7% |
Go deeper
- AEBI stock overview
- AEBI income statement
- AEBI valuation and score
- PLOW stock overview
- PLOW income statement
- PLOW valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.