Hillman Solutions vs Snap-on
HLMN and SNA 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 SNA compare
Snap-on is the larger company, worth 12 times as much as Hillman Solutions ($18.4B against $1.5B).
On earnings, Snap-on is cheaper: it trades at 18.1× trailing earnings, against 35.5× for Hillman Solutions.
Hillman Solutions grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.5% versus 4.0% for Snap-on).
Snap-on keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 19.6% compared with 2.6% at Hillman Solutions.
Snap-on pays a dividend yielding 2.7%; Hillman Solutions does not pay one.
Snap-on scores higher on the StockData Score (16 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 | SNA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.5B | $18.4B |
| Share price | $7.80 | $355.66 |
| Change, 1 year | −17.4% | 5.5% |
| Change, 5 years | −27.8% | 67.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.99 | 0.74 |
| Employees | 3,986 | 13K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 16 (better) |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 1 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 35.5× | 18.1× (better) |
| P/S | 0.9× (better) | 3.5× |
| P/B | 1.2× (better) | 3.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.5× (better) | 13.2× |
| P/FCF | 24.8× | – |
| PEG | – | 4.04 |
| FCF yield | 4.0% | – |
| Fair value | $10.69 | $327.47 |
| Margin of safety | 27.1% (better) | −8.6% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.5% (better) | 4.0% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 2.6% | 5.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 89.5% (better) | 3.4% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 100% (better) | 4.5% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 10.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 48.0% | – |
| Operating margin | 6.9% | 25.4% (better) |
| Net margin | 2.6% | 19.6% (better) |
| FCF margin | 3.8% | – |
| Return on equity | 3.4% | 17.6% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 4.3% | 19.6% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.57 | 0.15 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.56 (better) | −0.56 |
| Interest coverage | – | 26.6× |
| Current ratio | 2.71 | 3.43 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.74 | 7.22 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 2.7% |
| Payout ratio | – | 47.5% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 16 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 14.7% |
| Buyback yield | 2.4% (better) | 1.9% |
| Shareholder yield | 2.4% | 4.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 101% | 96.9% |
| Held by insiders | 1.9% | 2.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$110K (better) | −$61.5M |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.8% | 7.2% |
Go deeper
- HLMN stock overview
- HLMN income statement
- HLMN valuation and score
- SNA stock overview
- SNA income statement
- SNA valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.