Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises vs Helios Technologies
BW and HLIO side by side, both in fabricated metal products, except machinery and transportation equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BW and HLIO compare
Helios Technologies is the larger company, worth 2.2 times as much as Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises ($1.6B against $724M).
Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (75.2% versus 11.5% for Helios Technologies).
Helios Technologies keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 8.7% compared with 4.1% at Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises.
Helios Technologies pays a dividend yielding 0.94%; Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises does not pay one.
Helios Technologies scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 5 for Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises), 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 | BW | HLIO |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $724M | $1.6B |
| Share price | $4.86 | $47.69 |
| Change, 1 year | −28.9% | −10.2% |
| Change, 5 years | −50.2% | −56.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 2.50 | 1.19 |
| Employees | 1,650 | 2,300 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 5 | 19 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 20.1× |
| P/S | 0.7× (better) | 1.7× |
| P/B | 6.6× | 1.7× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 13.9× | 10.3× (better) |
| P/FCF | – | 13.0× |
| FCF yield | −21.6% | 7.7% (better) |
| Fair value | $4.61 | $56.94 |
| Margin of safety | −5.4% | 16.3% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 75.2% (better) | 11.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 0.74% | 9.9% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 133% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 135% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 26.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 17.9% | 33.5% (better) |
| Operating margin | 3.7% | 12.9% (better) |
| Net margin | 4.1% | 8.7% (better) |
| FCF margin | −15.8% | 13.4% (better) |
| Return on equity | – | 8.5% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 7.6% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.35 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 1.44 |
| Interest coverage | 1.8× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.79 | 2.62 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | −0.52 | 3.26 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.94% |
| Payout ratio | – | 17.7% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 0.00% |
| Buyback yield | −49.3% | −0.15% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | −49.3% | 0.80% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 88.1% | 97.8% |
| Held by insiders | 33.1% | 0.69% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$10.2M | −$1.2M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 15.3% | 3.3% |
Go deeper
- BW stock overview
- BW income statement
- BW valuation and score
- HLIO stock overview
- HLIO income statement
- HLIO valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.