Columbus McKinnon vs Douglas Dynamics
CMCO and PLOW side by side, both in construction, mining, and materials handling. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CMCO and PLOW compare
Douglas Dynamics is the larger company, worth 1.4 times as much as Columbus McKinnon ($864M against $597M).
Columbus McKinnon grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (55.2% versus 20.1% for Douglas Dynamics).
Douglas Dynamics keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 7.5% compared with −21.2% at Columbus McKinnon.
Both pay dividends: Columbus McKinnon yields 1.4% and Douglas Dynamics 3.2%.
Douglas Dynamics scores higher on the StockData Score (21 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 | PLOW |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $597M | $864M |
| Share price | $20.70 | $37.44 |
| Change, 1 year | 31.0% | 19.4% |
| Change, 5 years | −57.9% | −16.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.29 | 0.84 |
| Employees | 7,300 | 1,764 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 7 | 21 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 17.0× |
| P/S | 0.4× (better) | 1.2× |
| P/B | 0.4× (better) | 2.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 9.8× |
| P/FCF | – | 17.6× |
| PEG | – | 2.69 |
| FCF yield | −20.5% | 5.7% (better) |
| Fair value | $53.79 | $41.56 |
| Margin of safety | 61.5% (better) | 9.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 55.2% (better) | 20.1% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 12.9% (better) | 6.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | −20.7% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | −20.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 28.8% (better) | 27.3% |
| Operating margin | −9.6% | 11.3% (better) |
| Net margin | −21.2% | 7.5% (better) |
| FCF margin | −8.2% | 7.0% (better) |
| Return on equity | −27.8% | 18.3% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −4.5% | 17.9% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.74 | 0.21 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 0.66 |
| Current ratio | 2.00 | 2.16 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 0.48 | 3.08 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.4% | 3.2% (better) |
| Payout ratio | – | 53.7% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 3.1% (better) | 1.0% |
| Buyback yield | – | 0.69% |
| Shareholder yield | 1.4% | 3.8% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 88.9% | 94.8% |
| Held by insiders | 76.7% | 2.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $586K (better) | −$78.7K |
| Short interest, % of float | 36.7% | 2.7% |
Go deeper
- CMCO stock overview
- CMCO income statement
- CMCO valuation and score
- PLOW stock overview
- PLOW income statement
- PLOW valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.