Alamo vs Lindsay
ALG and LNN side by side, both in industrial and commercial machinery and computer equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How ALG and LNN compare
Alamo is the larger company, worth 1.6 times as much as Lindsay ($1.7B against $1.1B).
On earnings, Lindsay is cheaper: it trades at 20.4× trailing earnings, against 22.1× for Alamo.
Alamo grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (1.8% versus −6.0% for Lindsay).
Lindsay keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 8.8% compared with 4.7% at Alamo.
Both pay dividends: Alamo yields 0.96% and Lindsay 1.4%.
Lindsay scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 14 for Alamo), 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 | ALG | LNN |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.7B | $1.1B |
| Share price | $141.71 | $108.96 |
| Change, 1 year | −14.3% | −2.3% |
| Change, 5 years | −6.7% | −31.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.86 | 0.66 |
| Employees | 3,800 | 1,083 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 | 17 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 0 | 0 |
| Performance score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividend score | 4 | 4 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 22.1× | 20.4× (better) |
| P/S | 1.0× (better) | 1.7× |
| P/B | 1.5× (better) | 2.2× |
| EV/EBITDA | 15.2× | 11.5× (better) |
| P/FCF | 12.6× (better) | 31.9× |
| PEG | 113.50 | – |
| FCF yield | 7.9% (better) | 3.1% |
| Fair value | $151.77 | $126.31 |
| Margin of safety | 6.6% | 13.7% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 1.8% (better) | −6.0% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.6% (better) | 2.3% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −33.3% | −24.8% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −33.5% | −21.4% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 12.0% (better) | 6.6% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 22.9% | 28.9% (better) |
| Operating margin | 6.9% | 10.5% (better) |
| Net margin | 4.7% | 8.8% (better) |
| FCF margin | 8.3% (better) | 5.5% |
| Return on equity | 6.7% | 10.7% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 7.3% | 11.9% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.20 (better) | 0.23 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.01 (better) | −0.83 |
| Interest coverage | 6.6× | – |
| Current ratio | 4.19 (better) | 3.15 |
| Altman Z-score | 4.64 | 5.02 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.96% | 1.4% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 20.5% | 27.7% |
| Years of dividend growth | 11 | 16 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 18.2% (better) | 2.8% |
| Buyback yield | 0.56% | 7.3% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 1.5% | 8.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 97.9% | 103% |
| Held by insiders | 1.3% | 1.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$964K | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.2% | 9.2% |
Go deeper
- ALG stock overview
- ALG income statement
- ALG valuation and score
- LNN stock overview
- LNN income statement
- LNN valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.