EnerSys vs Woodward
ENS and WWD side by side, both in electronic and other electrical equipment and components, except computer equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How ENS and WWD compare
Woodward is the larger company, worth 3.1 times as much as EnerSys ($18.0B against $5.8B).
On earnings, EnerSys is cheaper: it trades at 17.1× trailing earnings, against 33.9× for Woodward.
Woodward grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (22.3% versus 3.7% for EnerSys).
Woodward keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 13.2% compared with 9.3% at EnerSys.
Both pay dividends: EnerSys yields 0.67% and Woodward 0.41%.
EnerSys scores higher on the StockData Score (22 against 15 for Woodward), 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 | ENS | WWD |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $5.8B | $18.0B |
| Share price | $159.95 | $304.65 |
| Change, 1 year | 28.1% | 13.9% |
| Change, 5 years | 87.1% | 153% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.17 | 1.07 |
| Employees | 9,682 | 7,100 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 22 (better) | 15 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 17.1× (better) | 33.9× |
| P/S | 1.5× (better) | 4.3× |
| P/B | 2.9× (better) | 7.3× |
| EV/EBITDA | 10.3× (better) | 22.0× |
| P/FCF | 8.0× (better) | 47.8× |
| PEG | 0.78 (better) | 0.88 |
| FCF yield | 12.4% (better) | 2.1% |
| Fair value | $215.21 | $292.93 |
| Margin of safety | 25.7% (better) | −4.0% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 3.7% | 22.3% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.7% | 7.4% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 0.42% | 42.4% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 6.6% | 42.2% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 18.3% (better) | 14.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 30.5% (better) | 29.5% |
| Operating margin | 13.0% | – |
| Net margin | 9.3% | 13.2% (better) |
| FCF margin | 18.9% (better) | 9.0% |
| Return on equity | 18.4% | 22.3% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 15.7% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.53 (better) | 0.54 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.84 (better) | 1.01 |
| Interest coverage | 9.9× | – |
| Current ratio | 2.80 (better) | 1.65 |
| Altman Z-score | 4.54 | 6.05 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.67% (better) | 0.41% |
| Payout ratio | 10.9% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 8.0% | 12.5% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 4.7% (better) | 3.3% |
| Shareholder yield | 5.4% (better) | 3.8% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 102% | 91.3% |
| Held by insiders | 1.6% | 0.44% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$990K (better) | −$32.2M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | 8.1% | 1.8% |
Go deeper
- ENS stock overview
- ENS income statement
- ENS valuation and score
- WWD stock overview
- WWD income statement
- WWD valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.