Eastern vs Lifetime Brands
EML and LCUT side by side, both in cutlery, handtools, and general hardware. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How EML and LCUT compare
Eastern and Lifetime Brands are about the same size, with market caps of $192M and $179M.
On earnings, Lifetime Brands is cheaper: it trades at 6.0× trailing earnings, against 17.6× for Eastern.
Lifetime Brands grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (1.2% versus −0.58% for Eastern).
Lifetime Brands keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 4.3% compared with 4.3% at Eastern.
Both pay dividends: Eastern yields 1.4% and Lifetime Brands 2.2%.
Lifetime Brands scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 14 for Eastern), 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 | EML | LCUT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $192M | $179M |
| Share price | $31.87 | $7.77 |
| Change, 1 year | 61.6% | 139% |
| Change, 5 years | 30.1% | −57.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.93 | 0.98 |
| Employees | 1,246 | 1,080 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 | 18 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Dividend score | 4 | 4 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 17.6× | 6.0× (better) |
| P/S | 0.8× | 0.3× (better) |
| P/B | 1.4× | 0.8× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 12.7× | 2.4× (better) |
| P/FCF | 23.9× | 3.5× (better) |
| FCF yield | 4.2% | 28.4% (better) |
| Fair value | $29.16 | $22.25 |
| Margin of safety | −9.3% | 65.1% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −0.58% | 1.2% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.7% (better) | −3.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 49.9% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 52.1% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −7.8% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 21.9% | 43.7% (better) |
| Operating margin | 4.2% | 7.4% (better) |
| Net margin | 4.3% | 4.3% (better) |
| FCF margin | 3.2% | 7.6% (better) |
| Return on equity | 8.5% | 14.5% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 5.1% | 23.4% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.30 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.80 (better) | −0.08 |
| Interest coverage | 4.4× (better) | 2.9× |
| Current ratio | 2.73 (better) | 2.45 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.39 (better) | 1.89 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.4% | 2.2% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 24.3% | 13.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Buyback yield | 0.83% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 2.2% (better) | 2.2% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 74.0% | 43.4% |
| Held by insiders | 27.1% | 47.8% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $984K (better) | −$355K |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.8% | 14.2% |
Go deeper
- EML stock overview
- EML income statement
- EML valuation and score
- LCUT stock overview
- LCUT income statement
- LCUT valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.