Columbus McKinnon vs Enerpac Tool
CMCO and EPAC side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CMCO and EPAC compare
Enerpac Tool is the larger company, worth 3.4 times as much as Columbus McKinnon ($2.0B against $597M).
Columbus McKinnon grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (55.2% versus 5.7% for Enerpac Tool).
Enerpac Tool keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 13.8% compared with −21.2% at Columbus McKinnon.
Both pay dividends: Columbus McKinnon yields 1.4% and Enerpac Tool 0.10%.
Enerpac Tool scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 7 for Columbus McKinnon), 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 | CMCO | EPAC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $597M | $2.0B |
| Share price | $20.70 | $39.37 |
| Change, 1 year | 31.0% | −1.9% |
| Change, 5 years | −57.9% | 72.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.29 | 0.82 |
| Employees | 7,300 | 2,100 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 7 | 15 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 1 |
| Performance score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 22.9× |
| P/S | 0.4× (better) | 3.1× |
| P/B | 0.4× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 13.8× |
| P/FCF | – | 16.9× |
| PEG | – | 0.82 |
| FCF yield | −20.5% | 5.9% (better) |
| Fair value | $53.79 | $43.76 |
| Margin of safety | 61.5% (better) | 10.0% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 55.2% (better) | 5.7% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 12.9% (better) | 4.3% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | −3.2% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 1.2% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 22.2% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 28.8% | 49.2% (better) |
| Operating margin | −9.6% | 19.8% (better) |
| Net margin | −21.2% | 13.8% (better) |
| FCF margin | −8.2% | 18.3% (better) |
| Return on equity | −27.8% | – |
| Return on invested capital | −4.5% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.74 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 0.05 |
| Current ratio | 2.00 | 2.73 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 0.48 | 5.08 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.4% (better) | 0.10% |
| Payout ratio | – | 2.3% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 3.1% (better) | 0.00% |
| Buyback yield | – | 4.0% |
| Shareholder yield | 1.4% | 4.1% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 88.9% | 99.7% |
| Held by insiders | 76.7% | 1.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $586K (better) | −$400K |
| Short interest, % of float | 36.7% | 3.7% |
Go deeper
- CMCO stock overview
- CMCO income statement
- CMCO valuation and score
- EPAC stock overview
- EPAC income statement
- EPAC valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.