Hasbro vs Mattel
HAS and MAT side by side, both in miscellaneous manufacturing industries. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How HAS and MAT compare
Hasbro is the larger company, worth 3.8 times as much as Mattel ($16.8B against $4.4B).
On earnings, Mattel is cheaper: it trades at 11.3× trailing earnings, against 17.7× for Hasbro.
Hasbro grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (27.6% versus 2.9% for Mattel).
Hasbro keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 15.6% compared with 7.8% at Mattel.
Hasbro pays a dividend yielding 2.4%; Mattel does not pay one.
Hasbro scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 14 for Mattel), 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 | HAS | MAT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $16.8B | $4.4B |
| Share price | $119.09 | $15.42 |
| Change, 1 year | 52.8% | −19.0% |
| Change, 5 years | 24.1% | −29.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.84 | 0.93 |
| Employees | 4,520 | 31K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 (better) | 14 |
| Valuation score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 17.7× | 11.3× (better) |
| P/S | 2.7× | 0.8× (better) |
| P/B | – | 2.2× |
| EV/EBITDA | 13.3× | 10.3× (better) |
| P/FCF | 13.7× | – |
| PEG | – | 2.78 |
| FCF yield | 7.3% | – |
| Fair value | $133.86 | $20.55 |
| Margin of safety | 11.0% | 25.0% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 27.6% (better) | 2.9% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −0.37% | 3.1% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | −18.8% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | −12.3% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 28.8% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 78.0% (better) | 47.5% |
| Operating margin | 21.9% (better) | 7.8% |
| Net margin | 15.6% (better) | 7.8% |
| FCF margin | 20.1% | – |
| Return on equity | – | 20.5% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 9.8% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 1.17 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.82 (better) | 2.99 |
| Interest coverage | 7.8× (better) | 3.5× |
| Current ratio | 1.40 | 1.90 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 4.10 (better) | 2.80 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.4% (better) | 0.00% |
| Payout ratio | 41.3% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 0.58% | – |
| Buyback yield | – | 15.7% |
| Shareholder yield | 2.4% | 15.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 98.3% | 107% |
| Held by insiders | 0.64% | 1.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$50.2M | $422K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.9% | 10.9% |
Go deeper
- HAS stock overview
- HAS income statement
- HAS valuation and score
- MAT stock overview
- MAT income statement
- MAT valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.