Graco vs Xylem
GGG 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 GGG and XYL compare
Xylem is the larger company, worth 2.0 times as much as Graco ($21.6B against $10.9B).
On earnings, Graco is cheaper: it trades at 21.2× trailing earnings, against 22.0× for Xylem.
Graco grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (4.6% versus 4.5% for Xylem).
Graco keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 23.5% compared with 11.2% at Xylem.
Both pay dividends: Graco yields 1.7% and Xylem 1.8%.
Xylem scores higher on the StockData Score (23 against 19 for Graco), 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 | GGG | XYL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $10.9B | $21.6B |
| Share price | $67.44 | $92.40 |
| Change, 1 year | −16.5% | −39.6% |
| Change, 5 years | −13.4% | −29.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.89 | 0.99 |
| Employees | 4,400 | 22K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 19 | 23 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 | 4 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 21.2× (better) | 22.0× |
| P/S | 4.8× | 2.4× (better) |
| P/B | 4.3× | 2.1× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.0× (better) | 17.6× |
| P/FCF | 17.4× (better) | 22.5× |
| PEG | 4.23 | 0.85 (better) |
| FCF yield | 5.8% (better) | 4.4% |
| Fair value | $80.17 | $129.28 |
| Margin of safety | 15.9% | 28.5% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 4.6% (better) | 4.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.3% | 13.1% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 10.6% (better) | 8.5% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 12.8% (better) | 9.1% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 9.9% | 22.9% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 52.6% (better) | 39.2% |
| Operating margin | 28.1% (better) | 14.5% |
| Net margin | 23.5% (better) | 11.2% |
| FCF margin | 27.8% (better) | 10.5% |
| Return on equity | 21.2% (better) | 9.5% |
| Return on invested capital | 26.1% (better) | 8.7% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.28 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 1.25 |
| Interest coverage | 199× (better) | 57.4× |
| Current ratio | 2.99 (better) | 1.61 |
| Altman Z-score | 13.12 (better) | 3.15 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.7% | 1.8% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 35.4% | 39.5% |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 (better) | 13 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 9.5% (better) | 9.0% |
| Buyback yield | 3.0% | 5.8% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 4.8% | 7.6% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 92.2% | 93.2% |
| Held by insiders | 0.99% | 0.19% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$3.9M | −$612K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.1% | 4.5% |
Go deeper
- GGG stock overview
- GGG income statement
- GGG 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.