Hillman Solutions vs Lifetime Brands
HLMN and LCUT side by side, both in cutlery, handtools, and general hardware. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How HLMN and LCUT compare
Hillman Solutions is the larger company, worth 8.6 times as much as Lifetime Brands ($1.5B against $179M).
On earnings, Lifetime Brands is cheaper: it trades at 6.0× trailing earnings, against 35.8× for Hillman Solutions.
Hillman Solutions grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.5% versus 1.2% for Lifetime Brands).
Lifetime Brands keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 4.3% compared with 2.6% at Hillman Solutions.
Lifetime Brands pays a dividend yielding 2.2%; Hillman Solutions does not pay one.
Lifetime Brands scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 10 for Hillman Solutions), 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 | HLMN | LCUT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.5B | $179M |
| Share price | $7.87 | $7.77 |
| Change, 1 year | −9.3% | 139% |
| Change, 5 years | −24.8% | −57.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.94 | 0.98 |
| Employees | 3,986 | 1,080 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 18 (better) |
| Valuation score | 5 | 5 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 35.8× | 6.0× (better) |
| P/S | 1.0× | 0.3× (better) |
| P/B | 1.2× | 0.8× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.5× | 2.4× (better) |
| P/FCF | 25.1× | 3.5× (better) |
| FCF yield | 4.0% | 28.4% (better) |
| Fair value | $10.67 | $22.25 |
| Margin of safety | 26.3% | 65.1% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.5% (better) | 1.2% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 2.6% (better) | −3.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 89.5% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 100% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 48.0% (better) | 43.7% |
| Operating margin | 6.9% | 7.4% (better) |
| Net margin | 2.6% | 4.3% (better) |
| FCF margin | 3.8% | 7.6% (better) |
| Return on equity | 3.4% | 14.5% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 4.3% | 23.4% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.57 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.56 (better) | −0.08 |
| Interest coverage | – | 2.9× |
| Current ratio | 2.71 (better) | 2.45 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.74 | 1.89 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 2.2% |
| Payout ratio | – | 13.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 0.00% |
| Buyback yield | 2.3% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 2.3% (better) | 2.2% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 101% | 43.4% |
| Held by insiders | 1.9% | 47.8% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$110K (better) | −$355K |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.8% | 14.2% |
Go deeper
- HLMN stock overview
- HLMN income statement
- HLMN valuation and score
- LCUT stock overview
- LCUT income statement
- LCUT valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.