Gorman Rupp vs Xylem
GRC 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 GRC and XYL compare
Xylem is the larger company, worth 11 times as much as Gorman Rupp ($21.6B against $1.9B).
On earnings, Xylem is cheaper: it trades at 22.0× trailing earnings, against 30.4× for Gorman Rupp.
Xylem grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (4.5% versus 4.2% for Gorman Rupp).
Xylem keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 11.2% compared with 8.9% at Gorman Rupp.
Both pay dividends: Gorman Rupp yields 1.1% and Xylem 1.8%.
Xylem scores higher on the StockData Score (23 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 | XYL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.9B | $21.6B |
| Share price | $71.93 | $92.40 |
| Change, 1 year | 61.2% | −39.6% |
| Change, 5 years | 54.8% | −29.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.79 | 0.99 |
| Employees | 1,415 | 22K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 | 23 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 30.4× | 22.0× (better) |
| P/S | 2.7× | 2.4× (better) |
| P/B | 4.3× | 2.1× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 17.1× (better) | 17.6× |
| P/FCF | 18.9× (better) | 22.5× |
| PEG | – | 0.85 |
| FCF yield | 5.3% (better) | 4.4% |
| Fair value | $61.18 | $129.28 |
| Margin of safety | −17.6% | 28.5% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 4.2% | 4.5% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 14.4% (better) | 13.1% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 20.3% (better) | 8.5% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 20.3% (better) | 9.1% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 22.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 31.4% | 39.2% (better) |
| Operating margin | 14.8% (better) | 14.5% |
| Net margin | 8.9% | 11.2% (better) |
| FCF margin | 14.3% (better) | 10.5% |
| Return on equity | 14.9% (better) | 9.5% |
| Return on invested capital | 11.6% (better) | 8.7% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.62 | 0.28 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.86 | 1.25 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 5.0× | 57.4× (better) |
| Current ratio | 2.81 (better) | 1.61 |
| Altman Z-score | 4.83 (better) | 3.15 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.1% | 1.8% (better) |
| Payout ratio | – | 39.5% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 13 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 9.0% |
| Buyback yield | 0.14% | 5.8% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 1.2% | 7.6% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 66.0% | 93.2% |
| Held by insiders | 14.8% | 0.19% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$400K (better) | −$612K |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.9% | 4.5% |
Go deeper
- GRC stock overview
- GRC income statement
- GRC 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.