Harley-Davidson vs Winnebago Industries
HOG and WGO side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How HOG and WGO compare
Harley-Davidson is the larger company, worth 3.8 times as much as Winnebago Industries ($3.4B against $881M).
Winnebago Industries grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (−3.4% versus −14.6% for Harley-Davidson).
Winnebago Industries keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 1.3% compared with −3.3% at Harley-Davidson.
Both pay dividends: Harley-Davidson yields 2.3% and Winnebago Industries 4.6%.
Winnebago Industries scores higher on the StockData Score (12 against 9 for Harley-Davidson), 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 | HOG | WGO |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.4B | $881M |
| Share price | $32.38 | $30.96 |
| Change, 1 year | 28.5% | −9.2% |
| Change, 5 years | −13.4% | −57.1% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.08 | 1.17 |
| Employees | 6,400 | 5,000 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 12 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 1 | 1 |
| Performance score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 25.6× |
| P/S | 0.8× | 0.3× (better) |
| P/B | 1.1× | 0.7× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 9.1× |
| P/FCF | 10.8× | 6.1× (better) |
| FCF yield | 9.3% | 16.4% (better) |
| Fair value | $48.24 | $29.20 |
| Margin of safety | 32.9% (better) | −6.0% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −14.6% | −3.4% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 2.0% (better) | −5.7% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −126% | 34.2% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −125% | 33.0% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 208% (better) | −31.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 31.5% (better) | 13.0% |
| Operating margin | −5.6% | 2.4% (better) |
| Net margin | −3.3% | 1.3% (better) |
| FCF margin | 7.8% (better) | 5.3% |
| Return on equity | −4.0% | 2.8% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −3.5% | 3.3% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.77 | 0.36 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 2.08 |
| Interest coverage | −12.0× | 3.2× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.97 | 2.17 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.02 | 3.38 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.3% | 4.6% (better) |
| Payout ratio | – | 116% |
| Years of dividend growth | 5 | 8 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 10.4% | 16.4% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 10.4% (better) | 0.19% |
| Shareholder yield | 12.7% (better) | 4.7% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 105% | 106% |
| Held by insiders | 1.1% | 7.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $1.4M (better) | −$989K |
| Short interest, % of float | 19.2% | 13.5% |
Go deeper
- HOG stock overview
- HOG income statement
- HOG valuation and score
- WGO stock overview
- WGO income statement
- WGO valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.