Ampco Pittsburgh vs Twin Disc
AP and TWIN side by side, both in general industrial machinery and equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How AP and TWIN compare
Twin Disc is the larger company, worth 2.4 times as much as Ampco Pittsburgh ($364M against $152M).
Twin Disc grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (12.1% versus 1.3% for Ampco Pittsburgh).
Twin Disc keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 8.0% compared with −13.1% at Ampco Pittsburgh.
Twin Disc pays a dividend yielding 0.68%; Ampco Pittsburgh does not pay one.
Twin Disc scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 2 for Ampco Pittsburgh), 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 | AP | TWIN |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $152M | $364M |
| Share price | $7.34 | $25.02 |
| Change, 1 year | 276% | 51.9% |
| Change, 5 years | 47.1% | 88.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.29 | 0.97 |
| Employees | 1,432 | – |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 2 | 19 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 11.6× |
| P/S | 0.4× (better) | 0.9× |
| P/B | 4.7× | 1.7× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 11.1× |
| P/FCF | 12.8× (better) | 14.1× |
| PEG | – | 0.33 |
| FCF yield | 7.8% (better) | 7.1% |
| Fair value | – | $33.73 |
| Margin of safety | – | 25.8% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 1.3% | 12.1% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 5.7% | 11.8% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 1903% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 1855% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 18.9% | 26.9% (better) |
| Operating margin | −10.2% | 5.2% (better) |
| Net margin | −13.1% | 8.0% (better) |
| FCF margin | 2.7% | 6.6% (better) |
| Return on equity | −123% | 16.3% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −21.6% | 4.8% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 3.76 | 0.18 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 0.38 |
| Interest coverage | −4.0× | 7.5× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.68 | 2.46 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 0.66 | 3.44 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.68% |
| Payout ratio | – | 7.9% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 0.68% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 55.7% | 64.6% |
| Held by insiders | 44.8% | 8.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $29.4K (better) | −$418K |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.1% | 3.0% |
Go deeper
- AP stock overview
- AP income statement
- AP valuation and score
- TWIN stock overview
- TWIN income statement
- TWIN valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.