Graham vs Twin Disc
GHM and TWIN 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 GHM and TWIN compare
Graham is the larger company, worth 2.8 times as much as Twin Disc ($979M against $351M).
On earnings, Twin Disc is cheaper: it trades at 11.2× trailing earnings, against 72.5× for Graham.
Graham grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (16.2% versus 12.1% for Twin Disc).
Twin Disc keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 8.0% compared with 5.0% at Graham.
Twin Disc pays a dividend yielding 0.71%; Graham does not pay one.
Twin Disc scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 15 for Graham), 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 | GHM | TWIN |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $979M | $351M |
| Share price | $83.42 | $24.11 |
| Change, 1 year | 37.0% | 51.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 540% | 82.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.11 | 0.97 |
| Employees | 732 | – |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 | 19 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 72.5× | 11.2× (better) |
| P/S | 3.7× | 0.9× (better) |
| P/B | 4.9× | 1.6× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 35.0× | 10.7× (better) |
| P/FCF | 33.9× | 13.5× (better) |
| PEG | 0.31 (better) | 0.32 |
| FCF yield | 3.0% | 7.4% (better) |
| Fair value | $59.30 | $37.89 |
| Margin of safety | −40.7% | 36.4% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 16.2% (better) | 12.1% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 20.3% (better) | 11.8% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −2.2% | 1903% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −6.5% | 1855% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 36.1% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 25.0% | 26.9% (better) |
| Operating margin | 6.0% (better) | 5.2% |
| Net margin | 5.0% | 8.0% (better) |
| FCF margin | 10.9% (better) | 6.6% |
| Return on equity | 8.2% | 16.3% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 11.5% (better) | 4.8% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.18 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −2.76 | 0.38 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 7.5× |
| Current ratio | 1.24 | 2.46 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 4.47 (better) | 3.40 |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.71% |
| Payout ratio | – | 7.9% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Buyback yield | −5.2% | – |
| Shareholder yield | −5.2% | 0.71% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 91.0% | 64.6% |
| Held by insiders | 6.3% | 8.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | – | −$418K |
| Short interest, % of float | 8.4% | 3.0% |
Go deeper
- GHM stock overview
- GHM income statement
- GHM valuation and score
- TWIN stock overview
- TWIN income statement
- TWIN valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.