Flowserve vs Graco
FLS and GGG side by side, both in general industrial machinery and equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How FLS and GGG compare
Flowserve and Graco are about the same size, with market caps of $10.0B and $10.9B.
On earnings, Graco is cheaper: it trades at 21.2× trailing earnings, against 27.7× for Flowserve.
Both pay dividends: Flowserve yields 1.1% and Graco 1.7%.
Graco scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 13 for Flowserve), 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 | FLS | GGG |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $10.0B | $10.9B |
| Share price | $79.01 | $67.44 |
| Change, 1 year | 14.6% | −16.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 129% | −13.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.28 | 0.89 |
| Employees | 16K | 4,400 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 | 19 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 2 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 4 | 4 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 27.7× | 21.2× (better) |
| P/S | – | 4.8× |
| P/B | 4.4× | 4.3× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 23.6× | 14.0× (better) |
| P/FCF | 24.4× | 17.4× (better) |
| PEG | 1.24 (better) | 4.23 |
| FCF yield | 4.1% | 5.8% (better) |
| Fair value | $61.82 | $80.17 |
| Margin of safety | −27.8% | 15.9% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | – | 4.6% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | – | 6.3% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 27.3% (better) | 10.6% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 29.0% (better) | 12.8% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 21.4% (better) | 9.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 52.6% |
| Operating margin | – | 28.1% |
| Net margin | – | 23.5% |
| FCF margin | – | 27.8% |
| Return on equity | 16.6% | 21.2% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 9.2% | 26.1% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.94 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.88 | – |
| Interest coverage | 4.6× | 199× (better) |
| Current ratio | 2.15 | 2.99 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.00 | 13.12 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.1% | 1.7% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 29.4% | 35.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 16 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 0.98% | 9.5% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 2.3% | 3.0% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 3.4% | 4.8% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 113% | 92.2% |
| Held by insiders | 0.62% | 0.99% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$19.9M | −$3.9M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 3 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 7.2% | 3.1% |
Go deeper
- FLS stock overview
- FLS income statement
- FLS valuation and score
- GGG stock overview
- GGG income statement
- GGG valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.