Helios Technologies vs Matthews International
HLIO and MATW side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How HLIO and MATW compare
Helios Technologies is the larger company, worth 2.6 times as much as Matthews International ($1.5B against $587M).
Helios Technologies grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (11.5% versus −31.8% for Matthews International).
Helios Technologies keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 8.7% compared with −2.6% at Matthews International.
Both pay dividends: Helios Technologies yields 0.96% and Matthews International 5.4%.
Helios Technologies scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 8 for Matthews International), 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 | HLIO | MATW |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.5B | $587M |
| Share price | $46.75 | $18.80 |
| Change, 1 year | −11.9% | −20.7% |
| Change, 5 years | −57.4% | −48.1% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.19 | 0.82 |
| Employees | 2,300 | 5,500 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 19 (better) | 8 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 4 | 4 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 19.7× | – |
| P/S | 1.7× | 0.5× (better) |
| P/B | 1.6× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 10.1× | 9.2× (better) |
| P/FCF | 12.8× | – |
| FCF yield | 7.8% (better) | −14.0% |
| Fair value | $56.83 | – |
| Margin of safety | 17.7% | – |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 11.5% (better) | −31.8% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 9.9% (better) | −0.01% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 133% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 135% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 26.9% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 33.5% | 36.6% (better) |
| Operating margin | 12.9% (better) | 6.3% |
| Net margin | 8.7% (better) | −2.6% |
| FCF margin | 13.4% (better) | −7.4% |
| Return on equity | 8.5% (better) | −5.7% |
| Return on invested capital | 7.6% (better) | 2.9% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.35 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.44 (better) | 4.38 |
| Interest coverage | – | 1.4× |
| Current ratio | 2.62 (better) | 1.76 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.22 (better) | 1.90 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.96% | 5.4% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 17.7% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 0.00% | – |
| Buyback yield | −0.15% | 1.0% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 0.81% | 6.4% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 97.8% | 96.3% |
| Held by insiders | 0.69% | 10.2% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$1.2M | $318K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.3% | 18.2% |
Go deeper
- HLIO stock overview
- HLIO income statement
- HLIO valuation and score
- MATW stock overview
- MATW income statement
- MATW valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.