Gencor Industries vs Douglas Dynamics
GENC and PLOW side by side, both in construction, mining, and materials handling. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How GENC and PLOW compare
Douglas Dynamics is the larger company, worth 3.4 times as much as Gencor Industries ($864M against $257M).
Douglas Dynamics grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (20.1% versus −6.4% for Gencor Industries).
Gencor Industries keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 13.5% compared with 7.5% at Douglas Dynamics.
Douglas Dynamics pays a dividend yielding 3.2%; Gencor Industries does not pay one.
Douglas Dynamics scores higher on the StockData Score (21 against 15 for Gencor Industries), 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 | GENC | PLOW |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $257M | $864M |
| Share price | $17.54 | $37.44 |
| Change, 1 year | 29.2% | 19.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 40.5% | −16.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.57 | 0.84 |
| Employees | 318 | 1,764 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 | 21 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 5 | 5 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 17.0× |
| P/S | 2.3× | 1.2× (better) |
| P/B | 1.1× (better) | 2.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | 6.2× (better) | 9.8× |
| P/FCF | – | 17.6× |
| PEG | – | 2.69 |
| FCF yield | −0.63% | 5.7% (better) |
| Fair value | $21.33 | $41.56 |
| Margin of safety | 17.8% (better) | 9.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −6.4% | 20.1% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 8.3% (better) | 6.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −2.0% (better) | −20.7% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | −20.9% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 23.0% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 28.6% (better) | 27.3% |
| Operating margin | 11.7% (better) | 11.3% |
| Net margin | 13.5% (better) | 7.5% |
| FCF margin | −1.5% | 7.0% (better) |
| Return on equity | 6.9% | 18.3% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 15.3% | 17.9% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.21 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 0.66 |
| Current ratio | 19.16 (better) | 2.16 |
| Altman Z-score | 13.79 (better) | 3.08 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 3.2% |
| Payout ratio | – | 53.7% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 1.0% |
| Buyback yield | – | 0.69% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 3.8% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 48.8% | 94.8% |
| Held by insiders | 27.3% | 2.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | – | −$78.7K |
| Short interest, % of float | 0.55% | 2.7% |
Go deeper
- GENC stock overview
- GENC income statement
- GENC valuation and score
- PLOW stock overview
- PLOW income statement
- PLOW valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.