Smith A O vs Helen of Troy
AOS and HELE side by side, both in electronic and other electrical equipment and components, except computer equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How AOS and HELE compare
Smith A O is the larger company, worth 13 times as much as Helen of Troy ($8.6B against $673M).
Helen of Troy grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (0.32% versus −0.71% for Smith A O).
Smith A O keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 13.0% compared with −5.4% at Helen of Troy.
Smith A O pays a dividend yielding 2.3%; Helen of Troy does not pay one.
Smith A O scores higher on the StockData Score (22 against 8 for Helen of Troy), 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 | AOS | HELE |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $8.6B | $673M |
| Share price | $63.07 | $28.89 |
| Change, 1 year | −3.8% | 43.9% |
| Change, 5 years | −18.7% | −87.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.85 | 1.04 |
| Employees | 12K | 1,854 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 22 (better) | 8 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Growth score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 17.6× | – |
| P/S | 2.3× | 0.4× (better) |
| P/B | 4.7× | 0.8× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 11.9× (better) | 17.3× |
| P/FCF | 15.3× | 4.6× (better) |
| PEG | 0.48 | – |
| FCF yield | 6.6% | 21.9% (better) |
| Fair value | $87.25 | $48.57 |
| Margin of safety | 27.7% | 40.5% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −0.71% | 0.32% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 5.8% (better) | −3.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −6.8% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −3.2% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 12.7% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 38.6% | 47.4% (better) |
| Operating margin | 17.5% (better) | 1.3% |
| Net margin | 13.0% (better) | −5.4% |
| FCF margin | 14.8% (better) | 8.1% |
| Return on equity | 27.0% (better) | −11.1% |
| Return on invested capital | 25.0% (better) | 1.1% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.37 (better) | 0.79 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.58 (better) | 8.48 |
| Interest coverage | 26.3× (better) | 0.5× |
| Current ratio | 1.64 | 1.65 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 6.23 (better) | 1.73 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 3 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.3% | – |
| Payout ratio | 40.3% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 7.1% | – |
| Buyback yield | 3.8% (better) | 0.25% |
| Shareholder yield | 6.1% (better) | 0.25% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 93.1% | 96.3% |
| Held by insiders | 0.58% | 2.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$111K | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 8.6% | 12.2% |
Go deeper
- AOS stock overview
- AOS income statement
- AOS valuation and score
- HELE stock overview
- HELE income statement
- HELE valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.