Barnes & Noble Education vs McGraw Hill
BNED and MH side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BNED and MH compare
McGraw Hill is the larger company, worth 5.8 times as much as Barnes & Noble Education ($2.6B against $439M).
On earnings, Barnes & Noble Education is cheaper: it trades at 19.8× trailing earnings, against 26.7× for McGraw Hill.
Barnes & Noble Education grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.0% versus 0.14% for McGraw Hill).
McGraw Hill keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 4.4% compared with 1.3% at Barnes & Noble Education.
Barnes & Noble Education pays a dividend yielding 1.3%; McGraw Hill does not pay one.
Barnes & Noble Education scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 5 for McGraw Hill), 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 | BNED | MH |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $439M | $2.6B |
| Share price | $12.67 | $13.34 |
| Change, 1 year | 39.5% | 19.1% |
| Change, 5 years | −98.8% | – |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.51 | 0.07 |
| Employees | 6,500 | 4,400 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 (better) | 5 |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 2 | 2 |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 19.8× (better) | 26.7× |
| P/S | 0.3× (better) | 1.2× |
| P/B | 1.6× (better) | 3.2× |
| EV/EBITDA | 5.8× (better) | 7.6× |
| P/FCF | 9.0× | 7.6× (better) |
| FCF yield | 11.1% | 13.2% (better) |
| Fair value | $15.64 | $15.44 |
| Margin of safety | 19.0% (better) | 13.6% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.0% (better) | 0.14% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.0% | – |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 12.1% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −36.0% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 21.4% | 81.7% (better) |
| Operating margin | 2.5% | 13.9% (better) |
| Net margin | 1.3% | 4.4% (better) |
| FCF margin | 2.8% | 15.9% (better) |
| Return on equity | 8.3% | 17.3% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 13.2% (better) | 9.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 3.27 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 3.65 |
| Current ratio | 1.66 (better) | 0.78 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.82 (better) | 0.54 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.3% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 1.3% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 76.6% | 101% |
| Held by insiders | 72.8% | 87.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$1.4M | $1.3M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 20.0% | 11.1% |
Go deeper
- BNED stock overview
- BNED income statement
- BNED valuation and score
- MH stock overview
- MH income statement
- MH valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.