Alamo vs Toro
ALG and TTC 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 TTC compare
Toro is the larger company, worth 5.7 times as much as Alamo ($10.2B against $1.8B).
On earnings, Alamo is cheaper: it trades at 17.7× trailing earnings, against 28.9× for Toro.
Toro grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.2% versus 4.1% for Alamo).
Toro keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 7.6% compared with 6.1% at Alamo.
Both pay dividends: Alamo yields 0.92% and Toro 1.4%.
Alamo scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 16 for Toro), 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 | TTC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.8B | $10.2B |
| Share price | $147.76 | $107.96 |
| Change, 1 year | −18.0% | 43.6% |
| Change, 5 years | −5.8% | 9.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.84 | 0.97 |
| Employees | 3,800 | – |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 19 (better) | 16 |
| Valuation score | 6 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Dividend score | 4 | 4 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 17.7× (better) | 28.9× |
| P/S | 1.1× (better) | 2.2× |
| P/B | 1.5× (better) | 7.6× |
| EV/EBITDA | 12.6× (better) | 17.3× |
| P/FCF | 13.3× (better) | 14.4× |
| PEG | 90.96 | – |
| FCF yield | 7.5% (better) | 7.0% |
| Fair value | $184.88 | $93.72 |
| Margin of safety | 20.1% (better) | −15.2% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 4.1% | 5.2% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.6% (better) | 5.9% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −14.7% | 9.1% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −15.1% | 13.3% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 12.0% (better) | 0.91% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 24.2% | 33.4% (better) |
| Operating margin | 8.9% | 10.3% (better) |
| Net margin | 6.1% | 7.6% (better) |
| FCF margin | 8.1% | 15.0% (better) |
| Return on equity | 8.8% | 26.4% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 9.2% | 17.6% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.22 (better) | 0.72 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.46 (better) | 1.24 |
| Interest coverage | 8.5× | 8.7× (better) |
| Current ratio | 4.39 (better) | 1.58 |
| Altman Z-score | 4.69 | 5.33 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.92% | 1.4% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 15.3% | 41.3% |
| Years of dividend growth | 11 | 16 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 18.2% (better) | 8.7% |
| Buyback yield | 0.59% | 3.5% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 1.5% | 4.9% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 97.9% | 94.3% |
| Held by insiders | 1.3% | 0.39% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$789K (better) | −$14.2M |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.6% | 4.3% |
Go deeper
- ALG stock overview
- ALG income statement
- ALG valuation and score
- TTC stock overview
- TTC income statement
- TTC valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.