Krispy Kreme vs Tootsie Roll Industries
DNUT and TR side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How DNUT and TR compare
Tootsie Roll Industries is the larger company, worth 4.9 times as much as Krispy Kreme ($2.8B against $568M).
Tootsie Roll Industries grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (1.6% versus −4.8% for Krispy Kreme).
Tootsie Roll Industries keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 13.0% compared with −6.2% at Krispy Kreme.
Tootsie Roll Industries pays a dividend yielding 0.97%; Krispy Kreme does not pay one.
Tootsie Roll Industries scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 4 for Krispy Kreme), 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 | DNUT | TR |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $568M | $2.8B |
| Share price | $3.27 | $36.86 |
| Change, 1 year | −13.6% | 6.3% |
| Change, 5 years | −76.8% | 28.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.16 | 0.30 |
| Employees | 23K | 2,100 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 4 | 14 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 0 | 0 |
| Performance score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 0 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 28.4× |
| P/S | 0.4× (better) | 3.8× |
| P/B | 0.9× (better) | 2.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.5× (better) | 24.6× |
| P/FCF | 15.2× (better) | 34.5× |
| FCF yield | 6.6% (better) | 2.9% |
| Fair value | $3.94 | $27.98 |
| Margin of safety | 16.9% (better) | −31.7% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −4.8% | 1.6% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.3% | 9.2% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 5.0% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 5.7% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 34.5% |
| Operating margin | −2.0% | 11.9% (better) |
| Net margin | −6.2% | 13.0% (better) |
| FCF margin | 2.5% | 10.9% (better) |
| Return on equity | −13.8% | 10.3% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −1.5% | 8.4% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.40 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 8.65 | – |
| Current ratio | 0.36 | 2.89 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 0.11 | 6.25 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.00% | 0.97% (better) |
| Payout ratio | – | 27.7% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | – |
| Buyback yield | 0.19% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 0.19% | 0.97% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 47.4% | 17.1% |
| Held by insiders | 90.7% | 59.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $3.0M | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 126% | – |
Go deeper
- DNUT stock overview
- DNUT income statement
- DNUT valuation and score
- TR stock overview
- TR income statement
- TR valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.