Enerpac Tool vs Manitowoc
EPAC and MTW side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How EPAC and MTW compare
Enerpac Tool is the larger company, worth 2.4 times as much as Manitowoc ($2.0B against $859M).
On earnings, Enerpac Tool is cheaper: it trades at 22.9× trailing earnings, against 33.5× for Manitowoc.
Manitowoc grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (10.2% versus 5.7% for Enerpac Tool).
Enerpac Tool keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 13.8% compared with 1.1% at Manitowoc.
Enerpac Tool pays a dividend yielding 0.10%; Manitowoc does not pay one.
Enerpac Tool scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 5 for Manitowoc), 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 | EPAC | MTW |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $2.0B | $859M |
| Share price | $39.37 | $23.81 |
| Change, 1 year | −1.9% | 109% |
| Change, 5 years | 72.7% | 18.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.82 | 1.41 |
| Employees | 2,100 | 4,700 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 (better) | 5 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 1 | 1 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 22.9× (better) | 33.5× |
| P/S | 3.1× | 0.4× (better) |
| P/B | – | 1.2× |
| EV/EBITDA | 13.8× | 8.7× (better) |
| P/FCF | 16.9× (better) | 17.4× |
| PEG | 0.82 | – |
| FCF yield | 5.9% (better) | 5.7% |
| Fair value | $43.76 | $23.19 |
| Margin of safety | 10.0% (better) | −2.7% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.7% | 10.2% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.3% | 9.2% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −3.2% (better) | −54.0% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 1.2% (better) | −53.6% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 22.2% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 49.2% (better) | 19.1% |
| Operating margin | 19.8% (better) | 3.6% |
| Net margin | 13.8% (better) | 1.1% |
| FCF margin | 18.3% (better) | 2.1% |
| Return on equity | – | 3.8% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 4.6% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.67 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.05 (better) | 2.83 |
| Current ratio | 2.73 (better) | 2.11 |
| Altman Z-score | 5.08 (better) | 2.36 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.10% | – |
| Payout ratio | 2.3% | 0.00% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 0.00% | – |
| Buyback yield | 4.0% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 4.1% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 99.7% | 83.9% |
| Held by insiders | 1.9% | 5.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$400K | −$106K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.7% | 5.1% |
Go deeper
- EPAC stock overview
- EPAC income statement
- EPAC valuation and score
- MTW stock overview
- MTW income statement
- MTW valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.