Curtiss Wright vs Enerpac Tool
CW and EPAC 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 CW and EPAC compare
Curtiss Wright is the larger company, worth 8.5 times as much as Enerpac Tool ($17.6B against $2.1B).
On earnings, Enerpac Tool is cheaper: it trades at 23.6× trailing earnings, against 32.8× for Curtiss Wright.
Curtiss Wright grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (10.5% versus 5.7% for Enerpac Tool).
Curtiss Wright keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 14.8% compared with 13.8% at Enerpac Tool.
Both pay dividends: Curtiss Wright yields 0.21% and Enerpac Tool 0.10%.
Curtiss Wright scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 15 for Enerpac Tool), 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 | CW | EPAC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $17.6B | $2.1B |
| Share price | $476.01 | $40.56 |
| Change, 1 year | −20.9% | −2.8% |
| Change, 5 years | 250% | 78.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.84 | 0.83 |
| Employees | 9,100 | 2,100 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 19 (better) | 15 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 32.8× | 23.6× (better) |
| P/S | 4.8× | 3.2× (better) |
| P/B | 6.3× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 22.4× | 14.2× (better) |
| P/FCF | 28.1× | 17.3× (better) |
| PEG | 1.72 | 0.84 (better) |
| FCF yield | 3.6% | 5.8% (better) |
| Fair value | $335.41 | $44.38 |
| Margin of safety | −41.9% | 8.6% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 10.5% (better) | 5.7% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.9% (better) | 4.3% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 19.9% (better) | −3.2% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 22.6% (better) | 1.2% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 21.8% | 22.2% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 37.7% | 49.2% (better) |
| Operating margin | 18.8% | 19.8% (better) |
| Net margin | 14.8% (better) | 13.8% |
| FCF margin | 17.1% | 18.3% (better) |
| Return on equity | 19.7% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 16.3% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.35 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.60 | 0.05 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 16.2× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.60 | 2.73 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 6.37 (better) | 5.16 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.21% (better) | 0.10% |
| Payout ratio | – | 2.3% |
| Years of dividend growth | 9 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 6.5% (better) | 0.00% |
| Buyback yield | 2.6% | 3.9% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 2.8% | 4.0% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 85.8% | 100.0% |
| Held by insiders | 0.39% | 1.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$30.0M | −$201K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.1% | 3.6% |
Go deeper
- CW stock overview
- CW income statement
- CW valuation and score
- EPAC stock overview
- EPAC income statement
- EPAC valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.