Flexsteel Industries vs Virco Mfg
FLXS and VIRC 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 VIRC compare
Flexsteel Industries is the larger company, worth 3.1 times as much as Virco Mfg ($312M against $101M).
Flexsteel Industries grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (3.4% versus −19.0% for Virco Mfg).
Flexsteel Industries keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 6.7% compared with −1.3% at Virco Mfg.
Both pay dividends: Flexsteel Industries yields 1.2% and Virco Mfg 1.6%.
Flexsteel Industries scores higher on the StockData Score (22 against 9 for Virco Mfg), 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 | VIRC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $312M | $101M |
| Share price | $74.90 | $6.41 |
| Change, 1 year | 114% | −9.3% |
| Change, 5 years | 158% | 89.1% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.81 | 0.85 |
| Employees | 1,200 | 731 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 22 (better) | 9 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 12.2× | – |
| P/S | 0.7× | 0.5× (better) |
| P/B | 2.4× | 0.9× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 7.6× (better) | 77.3× |
| P/FCF | 7.4× (better) | 11.4× |
| PEG | 0.40 | – |
| FCF yield | 13.6% (better) | 8.7% |
| Fair value | $88.15 | $9.30 |
| Margin of safety | 15.0% | 31.1% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 3.4% (better) | −19.0% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −0.84% | 5.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 33.8% (better) | −118% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 49.4% (better) | −117% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 14.5% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 24.3% | 37.5% (better) |
| Operating margin | 8.7% (better) | −2.5% |
| Net margin | 6.7% (better) | −1.3% |
| FCF margin | 9.2% (better) | 4.6% |
| Return on equity | 20.5% (better) | −2.2% |
| Return on invested capital | 23.4% (better) | −3.4% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.03 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | −4.42 |
| Interest coverage | – | −15.2× |
| Current ratio | 2.18 | 2.53 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 5.84 (better) | 2.10 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 3 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.2% | 1.6% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 14.0% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 13.6% | – |
| Buyback yield | −0.01% | 0.19% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 1.2% | 1.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 67.4% | 33.9% |
| Held by insiders | 14.0% | 11.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$3.0M | $320K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.9% | 1.6% |
Go deeper
- FLXS stock overview
- FLXS income statement
- FLXS valuation and score
- VIRC stock overview
- VIRC income statement
- VIRC valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.