Flowserve vs Xylem
FLS and XYL 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 XYL compare
Xylem is the larger company, worth 2.1 times as much as Flowserve ($21.6B against $10.0B).
On earnings, Xylem is cheaper: it trades at 22.0× trailing earnings, against 27.7× for Flowserve.
Both pay dividends: Flowserve yields 1.1% and Xylem 1.8%.
Xylem scores higher on the StockData Score (23 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 | XYL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $10.0B | $21.6B |
| Share price | $79.01 | $92.40 |
| Change, 1 year | 14.6% | −39.6% |
| Change, 5 years | 129% | −29.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.28 | 0.99 |
| Employees | 16K | 22K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 | 23 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 | 4 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 27.7× | 22.0× (better) |
| P/S | – | 2.4× |
| P/B | 4.4× | 2.1× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 23.6× | 17.6× (better) |
| P/FCF | 24.4× | 22.5× (better) |
| PEG | 1.24 | 0.85 (better) |
| FCF yield | 4.1% | 4.4% (better) |
| Fair value | $61.82 | $129.28 |
| Margin of safety | −27.8% | 28.5% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | – | 4.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | – | 13.1% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 27.3% (better) | 8.5% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 29.0% (better) | 9.1% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 21.4% | 22.9% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 39.2% |
| Operating margin | – | 14.5% |
| Net margin | – | 11.2% |
| FCF margin | – | 10.5% |
| Return on equity | 16.6% (better) | 9.5% |
| Return on invested capital | 9.2% (better) | 8.7% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.94 | 0.28 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.88 | 1.25 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 4.6× | 57.4× (better) |
| Current ratio | 2.15 (better) | 1.61 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.00 | 3.15 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.1% | 1.8% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 29.4% | 39.5% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 13 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 0.98% | 9.0% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 2.3% | 5.8% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 3.4% | 7.6% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 113% | 93.2% |
| Held by insiders | 0.62% | 0.19% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$19.9M | −$612K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 3 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 7.2% | 4.5% |
Go deeper
- FLS stock overview
- FLS income statement
- FLS valuation and score
- XYL stock overview
- XYL income statement
- XYL valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.