Carpenter Technology vs Titan International
CRS and TWI side by side, both in steel works, blast furnaces, and rolling and finishing mills. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CRS and TWI compare
Carpenter Technology is the larger company, worth 47 times as much as Titan International ($14.0B against $300M).
Carpenter Technology grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (8.6% versus 4.7% for Titan International).
Carpenter Technology keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 17.0% compared with −4.1% at Titan International.
Carpenter Technology pays a dividend yielding 0.21%; Titan International does not pay one.
Carpenter Technology scores higher on the StockData Score (21 against 6 for Titan International), 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 | CRS | TWI |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $14.0B | $300M |
| Share price | $283.08 | $4.65 |
| Change, 1 year | −12.5% | −41.6% |
| Change, 5 years | 764% | −44.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.37 | 1.14 |
| Employees | 4,500 | 8,200 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 21 (better) | 6 |
| Valuation score | 3 | 3 |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 26.9× | – |
| P/S | 4.5× | 0.2× (better) |
| P/B | 6.3× | 0.6× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 16.9× | 10.7× (better) |
| P/FCF | 38.7× | – |
| PEG | 0.25 | – |
| FCF yield | 2.6% (better) | −2.9% |
| Fair value | $301.35 | $7.40 |
| Margin of safety | 6.1% | 37.2% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 8.6% (better) | 4.7% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 16.2% (better) | 7.7% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 40.9% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 41.8% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 30.6% (better) | 14.0% |
| Operating margin | 22.5% (better) | −0.09% |
| Net margin | 17.0% (better) | −4.1% |
| FCF margin | 11.6% (better) | −0.46% |
| Return on equity | 25.8% (better) | −14.3% |
| Return on invested capital | 23.7% (better) | −0.14% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.31 (better) | 1.18 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.35 (better) | 6.15 |
| Interest coverage | 18.6× (better) | −0.0× |
| Current ratio | 3.81 (better) | 2.11 |
| Altman Z-score | 7.90 (better) | 1.68 |
| Piotroski F-score | 9 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.21% | – |
| Payout ratio | 7.6% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 0.00% | – |
| Buyback yield | 1.3% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 1.5% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 94.2% | 87.6% |
| Held by insiders | 2.6% | 30.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$94.6M | −$54.4M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.0% | 5.0% |
Go deeper
- CRS stock overview
- CRS income statement
- CRS valuation and score
- TWI stock overview
- TWI income statement
- TWI valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.