Gorman Rupp vs Power Solutions International
GRC and PSIX side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How GRC and PSIX compare
Gorman Rupp is the larger company, worth 2.0 times as much as Power Solutions International ($1.9B against $909M).
On earnings, Power Solutions International is cheaper: it trades at 12.9× trailing earnings, against 25.0× for Gorman Rupp.
Gorman Rupp grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.5% versus −0.16% for Power Solutions International).
Power Solutions International keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 10.4% compared with 10.2% at Gorman Rupp.
Gorman Rupp pays a dividend yielding 1.1%; Power Solutions International does not pay one.
Power Solutions International scores higher on the StockData Score (16 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 | PSIX |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.9B | $909M |
| Share price | $70.10 | $39.42 |
| Change, 1 year | 57.0% | −36.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 54.6% | 800% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.80 | 1.26 |
| Employees | 1,415 | 1,000 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 | 16 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Health score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 25.0× | 12.9× (better) |
| P/S | 2.6× | 1.3× (better) |
| P/B | 4.0× | 3.9× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.9× | 8.3× (better) |
| P/FCF | 16.8× | – |
| PEG | – | 0.11 |
| FCF yield | 6.0% | – |
| Fair value | $67.90 | $51.26 |
| Margin of safety | −3.2% | 23.1% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.5% (better) | −0.16% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 14.4% (better) | 11.6% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 46.7% (better) | −42.1% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 46.6% (better) | −42.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 32.5% (better) | 25.6% |
| Operating margin | 16.1% (better) | 14.9% |
| Net margin | 10.2% | 10.4% (better) |
| FCF margin | 15.3% | – |
| Return on equity | 17.0% | 35.5% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 13.5% | 53.9% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.54 | 0.00 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.40 (better) | −0.71 |
| Interest coverage | 6.0× | 17.0× (better) |
| Current ratio | 2.70 (better) | 2.43 |
| Altman Z-score | 4.88 | 5.34 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.1% | – |
| Buyback yield | 0.14% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 1.2% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 66.0% | 36.4% |
| Held by insiders | 14.8% | 53.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$400K | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.2% | 16.0% |
Go deeper
- GRC stock overview
- GRC income statement
- GRC valuation and score
- PSIX stock overview
- PSIX income statement
- PSIX valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.