Crane NXT vs Helios Technologies
CXT and HLIO side by side, both in fabricated metal products, except machinery and transportation equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CXT and HLIO compare
Crane NXT is the larger company, worth 2.1 times as much as Helios Technologies ($3.3B against $1.6B).
On earnings, Helios Technologies is cheaper: it trades at 20.3× trailing earnings, against 26.2× for Crane NXT.
Crane NXT grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (17.5% versus 11.5% for Helios Technologies).
Helios Technologies keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 8.7% compared with 6.9% at Crane NXT.
Both pay dividends: Crane NXT yields 1.2% and Helios Technologies 0.94%.
Helios Technologies scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 11 for Crane NXT), 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 | CXT | HLIO |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.3B | $1.6B |
| Share price | $57.97 | $48.06 |
| Change, 1 year | −7.4% | −10.9% |
| Change, 5 years | −44.1% | −56.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.97 | 1.19 |
| Employees | 2,200 | 2,300 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 11 | 19 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 4 | 4 |
| Dividend score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 26.2× | 20.3× (better) |
| P/S | 1.8× | 1.8× (better) |
| P/B | 2.6× | 1.7× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.9× (better) | 10.4× |
| P/FCF | – | 13.1× |
| FCF yield | – | 7.6% |
| Fair value | $55.63 | $57.36 |
| Margin of safety | −4.2% | 16.2% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 17.5% (better) | 11.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −10.8% | 9.9% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −17.1% | 133% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −17.5% | 135% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −4.1% | 26.9% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 41.2% (better) | 33.5% |
| Operating margin | 12.7% | 12.9% (better) |
| Net margin | 6.9% | 8.7% (better) |
| FCF margin | – | 13.4% |
| Return on equity | 10.2% (better) | 8.5% |
| Return on invested capital | 15.1% (better) | 7.6% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.18 (better) | 0.35 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.05 | 1.44 (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.31 | 2.62 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.87 | 3.27 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.2% (better) | 0.94% |
| Payout ratio | 31.9% | 17.7% |
| Years of dividend growth | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | −16.9% | 0.00% (better) |
| Buyback yield | – | −0.15% |
| Shareholder yield | 1.2% (better) | 0.79% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 107% | 97.8% |
| Held by insiders | 0.23% | 0.69% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $1.2M (better) | −$1.2M |
| Short interest, % of float | 15.7% | 3.3% |
Go deeper
- CXT stock overview
- CXT income statement
- CXT valuation and score
- HLIO stock overview
- HLIO income statement
- HLIO valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.