Gorman Rupp vs Lindsay
GRC and LNN side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How GRC and LNN compare
Gorman Rupp is the larger company, worth 1.7 times as much as Lindsay ($1.8B against $1.1B).
On earnings, Lindsay is cheaper: it trades at 20.1× trailing earnings, against 24.9× for Gorman Rupp.
Gorman Rupp grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.5% versus −6.0% for Lindsay).
Gorman Rupp keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 10.2% compared with 8.8% at Lindsay.
Both pay dividends: Gorman Rupp yields 1.1% and Lindsay 1.4%.
Lindsay scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 15 for Gorman Rupp), 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 | GRC | LNN |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.8B | $1.1B |
| Share price | $69.66 | $107.25 |
| Change, 1 year | 55.4% | −4.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 53.6% | −32.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.80 | 0.66 |
| Employees | 1,415 | 1,083 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 | 17 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Health score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 24.9× | 20.1× (better) |
| P/S | 2.5× | 1.7× (better) |
| P/B | 4.0× | 2.2× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.9× | 11.3× (better) |
| P/FCF | 16.7× (better) | 31.4× |
| FCF yield | 6.0% (better) | 3.2% |
| Fair value | $67.98 | $125.62 |
| Margin of safety | −2.5% | 14.6% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.5% (better) | −6.0% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 14.4% (better) | 2.3% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 46.7% (better) | −24.8% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 46.6% (better) | −21.4% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 6.6% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 32.5% (better) | 28.9% |
| Operating margin | 16.1% (better) | 10.5% |
| Net margin | 10.2% (better) | 8.8% |
| FCF margin | 15.3% (better) | 5.5% |
| Return on equity | 17.0% (better) | 10.7% |
| Return on invested capital | 13.5% (better) | 11.9% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.54 | 0.23 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.40 (better) | −0.83 |
| Interest coverage | 6.0× | – |
| Current ratio | 2.70 | 3.15 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 4.87 | 4.99 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.1% | 1.4% (better) |
| Payout ratio | – | 27.7% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 16 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 2.8% |
| Buyback yield | 0.14% | 7.4% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 1.2% | 8.8% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 66.0% | 103% |
| Held by insiders | 14.8% | 1.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$400K | −$49.4K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.2% | 9.2% |
Go deeper
- GRC stock overview
- GRC income statement
- GRC valuation and score
- LNN stock overview
- LNN income statement
- LNN valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.