Hurco Companies vs Mesa Laboratories
HURC and MLAB side by side, both in laboratory apparatus and analytical, optical, measuring, and controlling instruments. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How HURC and MLAB compare
Mesa Laboratories is the larger company, worth 5.8 times as much as Hurco Companies ($779M against $134M).
Mesa Laboratories grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (2.5% versus −1.9% for Hurco Companies).
Mesa Laboratories keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 2.7% compared with −3.6% at Hurco Companies.
Mesa Laboratories pays a dividend yielding 0.46%; Hurco Companies does not pay one.
Mesa Laboratories scores higher on the StockData Score (11 against 8 for Hurco Companies), 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 | HURC | MLAB |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $134M | $779M |
| Share price | $20.73 | $139.21 |
| Change, 1 year | 26.4% | 70.1% |
| Change, 5 years | −35.3% | −55.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.60 | 1.00 |
| Employees | 651 | 717 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 | 11 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 121× |
| P/S | 0.7× (better) | 3.1× |
| P/B | 0.7× (better) | 4.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 28.9× |
| P/FCF | 16.0× | 15.8× (better) |
| PEG | – | 1.31 |
| FCF yield | 6.3% | 6.3% (better) |
| Fair value | $60.68 | $81.27 |
| Margin of safety | 65.8% (better) | −71.3% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −1.9% | 2.5% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 0.91% | 13.2% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 13.6% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 21.4% | 64.8% (better) |
| Operating margin | −2.8% | 10.4% (better) |
| Net margin | −3.6% | 2.7% (better) |
| FCF margin | 4.6% | 19.7% (better) |
| Return on equity | −3.3% | 3.6% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −2.7% | 7.9% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | – |
| Interest coverage | −61.1× | 2.6× (better) |
| Current ratio | 3.98 (better) | 1.90 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.47 | 2.54 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.46% |
| Payout ratio | – | 53.3% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 0.00% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 0.46% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 68.2% | 89.9% |
| Held by insiders | 10.7% | 3.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $4.8K (better) | −$216K |
| Short interest, % of float | 0.55% | 7.0% |
Go deeper
- HURC stock overview
- HURC income statement
- HURC valuation and score
- MLAB stock overview
- MLAB income statement
- MLAB valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.