Gorman Rupp vs Twin Disc
GRC 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 GRC and TWIN compare
Gorman Rupp is the larger company, worth 5.4 times as much as Twin Disc ($1.9B against $349M).
On earnings, Twin Disc is cheaper: it trades at 12.9× trailing earnings, against 30.4× for Gorman Rupp.
Twin Disc grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (11.9% versus 4.2% for Gorman Rupp).
Gorman Rupp keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 8.9% compared with 7.1% at Twin Disc.
Both pay dividends: Gorman Rupp yields 1.1% and Twin Disc 0.71%.
Twin Disc scores higher on the StockData Score (20 against 13 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 | TWIN |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.9B | $349M |
| Share price | $71.93 | $23.98 |
| Change, 1 year | 61.2% | 51.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 54.8% | 84.9% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.79 | 0.95 |
| Employees | 1,415 | – |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 | 20 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 30.4× | 12.9× (better) |
| P/S | 2.7× | 0.9× (better) |
| P/B | 4.3× | 1.6× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 17.1× | 11.4× (better) |
| P/FCF | 18.9× (better) | 38.0× |
| PEG | – | 0.36 |
| FCF yield | 5.3% (better) | 2.6% |
| Fair value | $61.18 | $31.32 |
| Margin of safety | −17.6% | 23.4% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 4.2% | 11.9% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 14.4% (better) | 11.8% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 20.3% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 20.3% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 31.4% (better) | 26.9% |
| Operating margin | 14.8% (better) | 4.7% |
| Net margin | 8.9% (better) | 7.1% |
| FCF margin | 14.3% (better) | 2.4% |
| Return on equity | 14.9% (better) | 13.0% |
| Return on invested capital | 11.6% (better) | 8.1% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.62 | 0.14 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.86 | 0.43 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 5.0× | 5.8× (better) |
| Current ratio | 2.81 (better) | 2.35 |
| Altman Z-score | 4.83 (better) | 3.37 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.1% (better) | 0.71% |
| Payout ratio | – | 8.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Buyback yield | 0.14% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 1.2% (better) | 0.71% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 66.0% | 64.6% |
| Held by insiders | 14.8% | 8.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$400K (better) | −$418K |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.9% | 3.8% |
Go deeper
- GRC stock overview
- GRC income statement
- GRC 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.