Foster L B vs NWPX Infrastructure
FSTR and NWPX side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How FSTR and NWPX compare
NWPX Infrastructure is the larger company, worth 2.0 times as much as Foster L B ($880M against $445M).
On earnings, NWPX Infrastructure is cheaper: it trades at 16.7× trailing earnings, against 32.8× for Foster L B.
NWPX Infrastructure grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (15.9% versus 15.8% for Foster L B).
NWPX Infrastructure keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 8.9% compared with 2.3% at Foster L B.
NWPX Infrastructure scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 10 for Foster L B), 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 | FSTR | NWPX |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $445M | $880M |
| Share price | $42.31 | $91.38 |
| Change, 1 year | 50.6% | 54.9% |
| Change, 5 years | 152% | 207% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.94 | 0.94 |
| Employees | 1,191 | 1,318 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 15 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 32.8× | 16.7× (better) |
| P/S | 0.8× (better) | 1.5× |
| P/B | 2.4× | 2.0× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 12.4× | 12.4× (better) |
| P/FCF | 10.7× | 10.1× (better) |
| PEG | – | 3.63 |
| FCF yield | 9.3% | 9.9% (better) |
| Fair value | $36.11 | $79.13 |
| Margin of safety | −17.2% | −15.5% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 15.8% | 15.9% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 1.7% | 13.0% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 182% (better) | 46.0% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 187% (better) | 48.4% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −0.57% | 13.0% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 20.9% | 20.9% (better) |
| Operating margin | 4.4% | 11.8% (better) |
| Net margin | 2.3% | 8.9% (better) |
| FCF margin | 7.1% | 14.4% (better) |
| Return on equity | 7.6% | 13.0% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 7.2% | 13.2% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.15 | 0.02 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.57 | 0.04 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 48.6× |
| Current ratio | 1.89 | 2.56 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 5.15 (better) | 4.25 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 9 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 1.7% (better) | 0.75% |
| Shareholder yield | 1.7% (better) | 0.75% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 79.0% | 90.0% |
| Held by insiders | 21.4% | 3.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$6.6M (better) | −$9.4M |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.7% | 8.0% |
Go deeper
- FSTR stock overview
- FSTR income statement
- FSTR valuation and score
- NWPX stock overview
- NWPX income statement
- NWPX valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.