Builders FirstSource vs Tractor Supply
BLDR and TSCO side by side, both in consumer discretionary. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BLDR and TSCO compare
Tractor Supply is the larger company, worth 2.5 times as much as Builders FirstSource ($17.7B against $7.0B).
Tractor Supply grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (4.0% versus −8.3% for Builders FirstSource).
Tractor Supply keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 11.9% compared with 0.28% at Builders FirstSource.
Tractor Supply pays a dividend yielding 2.8%; Builders FirstSource does not pay one.
Tractor Supply scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 5 for Builders FirstSource), 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 | BLDR | TSCO |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $7.0B | $17.7B |
| Share price | $64.91 | $33.94 |
| Change, 1 year | −43.7% | −37.4% |
| Change, 5 years | −3.5% | −22.9% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.34 | 0.70 |
| Employees | 28K | 52K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 5 | 19 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 2 |
| Growth score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 175× | – |
| P/S | 0.5× (better) | 1.1× |
| P/B | 1.7× (better) | 6.7× |
| EV/EBITDA | 12.8× | 10.6× (better) |
| P/FCF | 27.8× (better) | 57.6× |
| FCF yield | 3.6% (better) | 1.7% |
| Fair value | $70.78 | $35.05 |
| Margin of safety | 8.3% (better) | 3.2% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −8.3% | 4.0% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 12.2% (better) | 7.9% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −93.2% | 73.0% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −93.0% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 7.9% | 10.1% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 28.5% | 36.5% (better) |
| Operating margin | 2.1% | 8.5% (better) |
| Net margin | 0.28% | 11.9% (better) |
| FCF margin | 1.7% | 1.9% (better) |
| Return on equity | 0.97% | 73.4% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 3.6% | 25.1% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.13 | 0.82 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 5.05 | 1.04 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 19.8× |
| Current ratio | 1.85 (better) | 1.33 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.10 | 3.77 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 2.8% |
| Payout ratio | – | 26.3% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 16 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 25.1% |
| Buyback yield | 4.3% (better) | 2.5% |
| Shareholder yield | 4.3% | 5.3% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 100% | 94.7% |
| Held by insiders | 16.5% | 0.32% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $4.0M (better) | −$11.3M |
| Superinvestors holding | 6 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 10.2% | 8.3% |
Go deeper
- BLDR stock overview
- BLDR income statement
- BLDR valuation and score
- TSCO stock overview
- TSCO income statement
- TSCO valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.