Flexsteel Industries vs Hooker Furnishings
FLXS and HOFT side by side, both in consumer discretionary. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How FLXS and HOFT compare
Flexsteel Industries is the larger company, worth 2.0 times as much as Hooker Furnishings ($311M against $158M).
Flexsteel Industries grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (3.4% versus −32.8% for Hooker Furnishings).
Flexsteel Industries keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 6.7% compared with −8.7% at Hooker Furnishings.
Both pay dividends: Flexsteel Industries yields 1.2% and Hooker Furnishings 3.1%.
Flexsteel Industries scores higher on the StockData Score (22 against 11 for Hooker Furnishings), 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 | FLXS | HOFT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $311M | $158M |
| Share price | $74.83 | $14.74 |
| Change, 1 year | 113% | 48.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 158% | −43.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.81 | 0.83 |
| Employees | 1,200 | 840 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 22 (better) | 11 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 12.2× | – |
| P/S | 0.7× (better) | 0.8× |
| P/B | 2.4× | 0.9× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 7.6× | – |
| P/FCF | 7.3× (better) | 8.4× |
| PEG | 0.40 | – |
| FCF yield | 13.6% (better) | 11.9% |
| Fair value | $86.37 | $14.90 |
| Margin of safety | 13.4% (better) | 1.1% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 3.4% (better) | −32.8% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −0.84% (better) | −12.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 33.8% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 49.4% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 14.5% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 24.3% | 38.5% (better) |
| Operating margin | 8.7% (better) | −6.0% |
| Net margin | 6.7% (better) | −8.7% |
| FCF margin | 9.2% (better) | 9.1% |
| Return on equity | 20.5% (better) | −9.9% |
| Return on invested capital | 23.4% (better) | −5.7% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Current ratio | 2.18 | 3.03 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 5.84 (better) | 3.50 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.2% | 3.1% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 14.0% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 13.6% (better) | 4.2% |
| Buyback yield | −0.01% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 1.2% | 3.1% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 67.4% | 73.3% |
| Held by insiders | 13.6% | 9.2% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$3.7M | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.9% | 1.0% |
Go deeper
- FLXS stock overview
- FLXS income statement
- FLXS valuation and score
- HOFT stock overview
- HOFT income statement
- HOFT valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.