Carrier Global vs Lennox International
CARR and LII side by side, both in industrial and commercial machinery and computer equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CARR and LII compare
Carrier Global is the larger company, worth 3.7 times as much as Lennox International ($44.2B against $11.9B).
Carrier Global grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (3.3% versus −2.1% for Lennox International).
Lennox International keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 14.9% compared with −7.9% at Carrier Global.
Both pay dividends: Carrier Global yields 1.3% and Lennox International 1.5%.
Lennox International scores higher on the StockData Score (20 against 5 for Carrier Global), 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 | CARR | LII |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $44.2B | $11.9B |
| Share price | $53.63 | $344.08 |
| Change, 1 year | −11.7% | −29.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 1.6% | 13.9% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.23 | 1.10 |
| Employees | 47K | 13K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 5 | 20 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 15.3× |
| P/S | 1.9× (better) | 2.2× |
| P/B | – | 9.2× |
| EV/EBITDA | 282× | 11.5× (better) |
| P/FCF | 18.6× | 16.1× (better) |
| PEG | – | 0.85 |
| FCF yield | 5.4% | 6.2% (better) |
| Fair value | $36.48 | $483.03 |
| Margin of safety | −47.0% | 28.8% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 3.3% (better) | −2.1% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.5% | 7.4% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −145% | −6.6% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −150% | −4.8% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −5.2% | 19.8% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 33.3% |
| Operating margin | −4.8% | 19.7% (better) |
| Net margin | −7.9% | 14.9% (better) |
| FCF margin | 10.4% | 13.9% (better) |
| Return on equity | – | 68.1% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 33.7% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 1.22 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 52.16 | 1.31 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 18.5× |
| Current ratio | 1.00 | 1.57 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.13 | 5.93 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.3% | 1.5% (better) |
| Payout ratio | – | 23.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 16 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 19.2% (better) | 10.4% |
| Buyback yield | 3.7% (better) | 2.8% |
| Shareholder yield | 5.0% (better) | 4.4% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 88.0% | 77.6% |
| Held by insiders | 4.8% | 10.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$749M | −$1.4M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.8% | 8.7% |
Go deeper
- CARR stock overview
- CARR income statement
- CARR valuation and score
- LII stock overview
- LII income statement
- LII valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.