Crane NXT vs Mueller Water Products
CXT and MWA 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 MWA compare
Crane NXT and Mueller Water Products are about the same size, with market caps of $3.3B and $3.8B.
On earnings, Mueller Water Products is cheaper: it trades at 17.2× trailing earnings, against 26.2× for Crane NXT.
Crane NXT grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (17.5% versus 5.9% for Mueller Water Products).
Mueller Water Products keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 15.0% compared with 6.9% at Crane NXT.
Both pay dividends: Crane NXT yields 1.2% and Mueller Water Products 0.87%.
Mueller Water Products 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 | MWA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.3B | $3.8B |
| Share price | $57.97 | $24.23 |
| Change, 1 year | −7.4% | 1.2% |
| Change, 5 years | −44.1% | 65.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.97 | 0.97 |
| Employees | 2,200 | 3,500 |
| 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× | 17.2× (better) |
| P/S | 1.8× (better) | 2.6× |
| P/B | 2.6× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.9× (better) | 11.1× |
| P/FCF | – | 21.1× |
| PEG | – | 0.47 |
| FCF yield | – | 4.7% |
| Fair value | $55.63 | $31.70 |
| Margin of safety | −4.2% | 23.6% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 17.5% (better) | 5.9% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −10.8% | 8.2% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −17.1% | 49.0% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −17.5% | 50.0% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −4.1% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 41.2% (better) | 37.9% |
| Operating margin | 12.7% | 19.4% (better) |
| Net margin | 6.9% | 15.0% (better) |
| FCF margin | – | 12.1% |
| Return on equity | 10.2% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 15.1% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.18 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.05 | −0.13 |
| Interest coverage | – | 16.2× |
| Current ratio | 1.31 | 4.64 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.87 | 4.51 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.2% (better) | 0.87% |
| Payout ratio | 31.9% | 19.5% |
| Years of dividend growth | 2 | 11 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | −16.9% | 5.0% (better) |
| Buyback yield | – | 0.35% |
| Shareholder yield | 1.2% (better) | 1.2% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 107% | 96.2% |
| Held by insiders | 0.23% | 0.52% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $1.2M (better) | −$4.0M |
| Short interest, % of float | 15.7% | 4.4% |
Go deeper
- CXT stock overview
- CXT income statement
- CXT valuation and score
- MWA stock overview
- MWA income statement
- MWA valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.