Hillman Solutions vs Stanley Black & Decker
HLMN and SWK 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 SWK compare
Stanley Black & Decker is the larger company, worth 10 times as much as Hillman Solutions ($15.6B against $1.5B).
On earnings, Stanley Black & Decker is cheaper: it trades at 25.2× trailing earnings, against 35.5× for Hillman Solutions.
Hillman Solutions grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.5% versus 0.57% for Stanley Black & Decker).
Stanley Black & Decker keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 4.1% compared with 2.6% at Hillman Solutions.
Stanley Black & Decker pays a dividend yielding 3.2%; Hillman Solutions does not pay one.
Stanley Black & Decker scores higher on the StockData Score (12 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 | SWK |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.5B | $15.6B |
| Share price | $7.80 | $103.44 |
| Change, 1 year | −17.4% | 47.9% |
| Change, 5 years | −27.8% | −43.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.99 | 1.21 |
| Employees | 3,986 | 44K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 12 (better) |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 1 |
| Health score | 2 | 2 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 35.5× | 25.2× (better) |
| P/S | 0.9× (better) | 1.0× |
| P/B | 1.2× (better) | 1.7× |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.5× (better) | 11.7× |
| P/FCF | 24.8× | 12.1× (better) |
| FCF yield | 4.0% | 8.3% (better) |
| Fair value | $10.69 | $99.73 |
| Margin of safety | 27.1% (better) | −3.7% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.5% (better) | 0.57% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 2.6% | 3.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 89.5% (better) | 29.7% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 100% (better) | 29.7% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | −18.7% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 48.0% (better) | 31.9% |
| Operating margin | 6.9% | – |
| Net margin | 2.6% | 4.1% (better) |
| FCF margin | 3.8% | 8.5% (better) |
| Return on equity | 3.4% | 6.9% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 4.3% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.57 | 0.53 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.56 | 2.47 (better) |
| Current ratio | 2.71 (better) | 1.43 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.74 | 2.30 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 3.2% |
| Payout ratio | – | 81.0% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 17 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 3.5% |
| Buyback yield | 2.4% (better) | 1.7% |
| Shareholder yield | 2.4% | 4.9% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 101% | 98.6% |
| Held by insiders | 1.9% | 0.30% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$110K (better) | −$918K |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.8% | 4.8% |
Go deeper
- HLMN stock overview
- HLMN income statement
- HLMN valuation and score
- SWK stock overview
- SWK income statement
- SWK valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.