CECO Environmental vs Zurn Elkay Water Solutions
CECO and ZWS 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 CECO and ZWS compare
Zurn Elkay Water Solutions is the larger company, worth 2.3 times as much as CECO Environmental ($7.6B against $3.3B).
CECO Environmental grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (54.5% versus 10.1% for Zurn Elkay Water Solutions).
Zurn Elkay Water Solutions keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 15.9% compared with −3.1% at CECO Environmental.
Zurn Elkay Water Solutions pays a dividend yielding 0.96%; CECO Environmental does not pay one.
Zurn Elkay Water Solutions scores higher on the StockData Score (21 against 10 for CECO Environmental), 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 | CECO | ZWS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.3B | $7.6B |
| Share price | $56.00 | $45.87 |
| Change, 1 year | 4.1% | −3.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 752% | 21.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.06 | 1.01 |
| Employees | 1,540 | 2,600 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 21 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Performance score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 26.7× |
| P/S | 3.0× (better) | 4.1× |
| P/B | 1.6× (better) | 4.5× |
| EV/EBITDA | 87.8× | 19.3× (better) |
| P/FCF | 28.3× | – |
| PEG | – | 0.63 |
| FCF yield | 3.5% | – |
| Fair value | $3.76 | $49.18 |
| Margin of safety | −1388% | 6.7% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 54.5% (better) | 10.1% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 19.6% (better) | −3.7% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −166% | 51.1% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −154% | 53.6% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 42.9% (better) | 32.7% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 32.1% | 50.4% (better) |
| Operating margin | −0.38% | 22.1% (better) |
| Net margin | −3.1% | 15.9% (better) |
| FCF margin | 10.4% | – |
| Return on equity | −2.9% | 17.7% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −0.22% | 16.4% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.29 (better) | 0.30 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 12.15 | 0.48 (better) |
| Interest coverage | −0.1× | 16.1× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.29 | 2.85 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.59 | 4.94 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.96% |
| Payout ratio | – | 25.3% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 4 |
| Buyback yield | – | 2.1% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 3.1% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 89.0% | 89.8% |
| Held by insiders | 9.4% | 2.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$7.7M (better) | −$36.8M |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.4% | 2.3% |
Go deeper
- CECO stock overview
- CECO income statement
- CECO valuation and score
- ZWS stock overview
- ZWS income statement
- ZWS valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.