Helios Technologies vs Parker-Hannifin
HLIO and PH side by side, both in fabricated metal products, except machinery and transportation equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How HLIO and PH compare
Parker-Hannifin is the larger company, worth 52 times as much as Helios Technologies ($113B against $2.2B).
On earnings, Helios Technologies is cheaper: it trades at 30.8× trailing earnings, against 31.6× for Parker-Hannifin.
Helios Technologies grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (14.0% versus 8.3% for Parker-Hannifin).
Both pay dividends: Helios Technologies yields 0.68% and Parker-Hannifin 0.84%.
Helios Technologies scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 12 for Parker-Hannifin), 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 | PH |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $2.2B | $113B |
| Share price | $66.15 | $899.82 |
| Change, 1 year | 16.3% | 16.1% |
| Change, 5 years | −29.1% | 176% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.13 | 1.14 |
| Employees | 2,300 | 60K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 19 (better) | 12 |
| Valuation score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 5 | 5 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 30.8× (better) | 31.6× |
| P/S | 2.4× (better) | 5.3× |
| P/B | 2.3× (better) | 7.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | 15.5× (better) | 23.8× |
| P/FCF | 20.4× (better) | 29.0× |
| PEG | – | 1.50 |
| FCF yield | 4.9% (better) | 3.4% |
| Fair value | $53.17 | $600.32 |
| Margin of safety | −24.4% (better) | −49.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 14.0% (better) | 8.3% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 9.9% (better) | 8.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 105% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 107% (better) | 5.0% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 26.9% (better) | 16.4% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 33.5% | 37.7% (better) |
| Operating margin | 10.0% | 23.6% (better) |
| Net margin | 8.0% | – |
| FCF margin | 12.0% | 18.2% (better) |
| Return on equity | 7.7% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 6.2% | 18.8% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.24 (better) | 0.49 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.05 (better) | 1.38 |
| Interest coverage | – | 12.6× |
| Current ratio | 2.74 (better) | 1.26 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.84 | 6.81 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 9 | – |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.68% | 0.84% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 18.1% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 9 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 0.00% | 15.1% (better) |
| Buyback yield | −0.10% | 1.1% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 0.58% | 2.0% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 97.8% | 92.2% |
| Held by insiders | 0.69% | 0.20% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$1.3M (better) | −$49.7M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.8% | 1.2% |
Go deeper
- HLIO stock overview
- HLIO income statement
- HLIO valuation and score
- PH stock overview
- PH income statement
- PH valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.