Eastern vs Northern Technologies International
EML and NTIC side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How EML and NTIC compare
Eastern is the larger company, worth 2.7 times as much as Northern Technologies International ($192M against $72.4M).
Northern Technologies International grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (7.7% versus −0.58% for Eastern).
Eastern keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 4.3% compared with −1.3% at Northern Technologies International.
Both pay dividends: Eastern yields 1.4% and Northern Technologies International 0.13%.
Eastern scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 4 for Northern Technologies International), 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 | NTIC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $192M | $72.4M |
| Share price | $31.87 | $7.62 |
| Change, 1 year | 61.6% | −6.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 30.1% | −52.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.93 | 0.38 |
| Employees | 1,246 | 94 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 (better) | 4 |
| Valuation score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 17.6× | – |
| P/S | 0.8× (better) | 0.8× |
| P/B | 1.4× | 1.0× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 12.7× (better) | 25.2× |
| P/FCF | 23.9× | – |
| FCF yield | 4.2% (better) | −4.4% |
| Fair value | $29.16 | $4.75 |
| Margin of safety | −9.3% (better) | −60.4% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −0.58% | 7.7% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.7% | 12.1% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 49.9% (better) | −139% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 52.1% (better) | −140% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −7.8% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 21.9% | 35.8% (better) |
| Operating margin | 4.2% (better) | 3.0% |
| Net margin | 4.3% (better) | −1.3% |
| FCF margin | 3.2% (better) | −3.5% |
| Return on equity | 8.5% (better) | −1.6% |
| Return on invested capital | 5.1% (better) | 3.3% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.30 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.80 | – |
| Interest coverage | 4.4× (better) | 3.5× |
| Current ratio | 2.73 (better) | 1.72 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.39 (better) | 3.30 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.4% (better) | 0.13% |
| Payout ratio | 24.3% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 0.00% | 4.2% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 0.83% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 2.2% (better) | 0.13% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 74.0% | 29.9% |
| Held by insiders | 27.1% | 19.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $984K (better) | −$225K |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.8% | 0.15% |
Go deeper
- EML stock overview
- EML income statement
- EML valuation and score
- NTIC stock overview
- NTIC income statement
- NTIC valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.