Enerpac Tool vs Power Solutions International
EPAC and PSIX side by side, both in industrial and commercial machinery and computer equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How EPAC and PSIX compare
Enerpac Tool is the larger company, worth 2.2 times as much as Power Solutions International ($2.0B against $909M).
On earnings, Power Solutions International is cheaper: it trades at 12.9× trailing earnings, against 22.8× for Enerpac Tool.
Enerpac Tool grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.7% versus −0.16% for Power Solutions International).
Enerpac Tool keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 13.8% compared with 10.4% at Power Solutions International.
Enerpac Tool pays a dividend yielding 0.10%; Power Solutions International does not pay one.
Power Solutions International scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 15 for Enerpac Tool), 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 | PSIX |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $2.0B | $909M |
| Share price | $39.29 | $39.42 |
| Change, 1 year | −2.2% | −36.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 72.3% | 800% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.81 | 1.26 |
| Employees | 2,100 | 1,000 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 | 16 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 | 4 |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 22.8× | 12.9× (better) |
| P/S | 3.1× | 1.3× (better) |
| P/B | – | 3.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | 13.8× | 8.3× (better) |
| P/FCF | 16.9× | – |
| PEG | 0.82 | 0.11 (better) |
| FCF yield | 5.9% | – |
| Fair value | $43.98 | $51.26 |
| Margin of safety | 10.7% | 23.1% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.7% (better) | −0.16% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.3% | 11.6% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −3.2% (better) | −42.1% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 1.2% (better) | −42.0% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 22.2% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 49.2% (better) | 25.6% |
| Operating margin | 19.8% (better) | 14.9% |
| Net margin | 13.8% (better) | 10.4% |
| FCF margin | 18.3% | – |
| Return on equity | – | 35.5% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 53.9% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.05 (better) | −0.71 |
| Interest coverage | – | 17.0× |
| Current ratio | 2.73 (better) | 2.43 |
| Altman Z-score | 5.07 | 5.34 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.10% | – |
| Payout ratio | 2.3% | – |
| 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% | 36.4% |
| Held by insiders | 1.9% | 53.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$400K | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.7% | 16.0% |
Go deeper
- EPAC stock overview
- EPAC income statement
- EPAC valuation and score
- PSIX stock overview
- PSIX income statement
- PSIX valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.