Enerpac Tool vs Twin Disc
EPAC and TWIN side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How EPAC and TWIN compare
Enerpac Tool is the larger company, worth 5.8 times as much as Twin Disc ($2.0B against $351M).
On earnings, Twin Disc is cheaper: it trades at 11.2× trailing earnings, against 22.9× for Enerpac Tool.
Twin Disc grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (12.1% 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 8.0% at Twin Disc.
Both pay dividends: Enerpac Tool yields 0.10% and Twin Disc 0.71%.
Twin Disc scores higher on the StockData Score (19 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 | TWIN |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $2.0B | $351M |
| Share price | $39.37 | $24.11 |
| Change, 1 year | −1.9% | 51.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 72.7% | 82.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.82 | 0.97 |
| Employees | 2,100 | – |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 | 19 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 | 4 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 22.9× | 11.2× (better) |
| P/S | 3.1× | 0.9× (better) |
| P/B | – | 1.6× |
| EV/EBITDA | 13.8× | 10.7× (better) |
| P/FCF | 16.9× | 13.5× (better) |
| PEG | 0.82 | 0.32 (better) |
| FCF yield | 5.9% | 7.4% (better) |
| Fair value | $43.76 | $37.89 |
| Margin of safety | 10.0% | 36.4% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.7% | 12.1% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.3% | 11.8% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −3.2% | 1903% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 1.2% | 1855% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 22.2% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 49.2% (better) | 26.9% |
| Operating margin | 19.8% (better) | 5.2% |
| Net margin | 13.8% (better) | 8.0% |
| FCF margin | 18.3% (better) | 6.6% |
| Return on equity | – | 16.3% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 4.8% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.18 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.05 (better) | 0.38 |
| Interest coverage | – | 7.5× |
| Current ratio | 2.73 (better) | 2.46 |
| Altman Z-score | 5.08 (better) | 3.40 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.10% | 0.71% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 2.3% | 7.9% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 0.00% | – |
| Buyback yield | 4.0% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 4.1% (better) | 0.71% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 99.7% | 64.6% |
| Held by insiders | 1.9% | 8.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$400K (better) | −$418K |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.7% | 3.0% |
Go deeper
- EPAC stock overview
- EPAC income statement
- EPAC valuation and score
- TWIN stock overview
- TWIN income statement
- TWIN valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.