Ingersoll Rand vs Xylem
IR and XYL side by side, both in general industrial machinery and equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How IR and XYL compare
Ingersoll Rand is the larger company, worth 1.4 times as much as Xylem ($31.1B against $21.6B).
On earnings, Xylem is cheaper: it trades at 22.0× trailing earnings, against 22.5× for Ingersoll Rand.
Ingersoll Rand grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (8.0% versus 4.5% for Xylem).
Ingersoll Rand keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 17.2% compared with 11.2% at Xylem.
Both pay dividends: Ingersoll Rand yields 0.10% and Xylem 1.8%.
Xylem scores higher on the StockData Score (23 against 18 for Ingersoll Rand), 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 | IR | XYL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $31.1B | $21.6B |
| Share price | $80.05 | $92.40 |
| Change, 1 year | 0.44% | −39.6% |
| Change, 5 years | 39.8% | −29.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.14 | 0.99 |
| Employees | 21K | 22K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 18 | 23 (better) |
| Valuation score | 6 | 6 |
| Growth score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 22.5× | 22.0× (better) |
| P/S | 3.9× | 2.4× (better) |
| P/B | 3.0× | 2.1× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.4× (better) | 17.6× |
| P/FCF | 20.5× (better) | 22.5× |
| PEG | – | 0.85 |
| FCF yield | 4.9% (better) | 4.4% |
| Fair value | $127.42 | $129.28 |
| Margin of safety | 37.2% (better) | 28.5% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 8.0% (better) | 4.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 14.0% (better) | 13.1% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 154% (better) | 8.5% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 163% (better) | 9.1% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 22.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 43.1% (better) | 39.2% |
| Operating margin | 22.9% (better) | 14.5% |
| Net margin | 17.2% (better) | 11.2% |
| FCF margin | 18.8% (better) | 10.5% |
| Return on equity | 13.4% (better) | 9.5% |
| Return on invested capital | 11.5% (better) | 8.7% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.45 | 0.28 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.42 | 1.25 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 7.2× | 57.4× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.69 (better) | 1.61 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.51 (better) | 3.15 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.10% | 1.8% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 2.2% | 39.5% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 13 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 9.0% |
| Buyback yield | 3.2% | 5.8% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 3.3% | 7.6% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 104% | 93.2% |
| Held by insiders | 0.21% | 0.19% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$58.5M | −$612K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.5% | 4.5% |
Go deeper
- IR stock overview
- IR income statement
- IR valuation and score
- XYL stock overview
- XYL income statement
- XYL valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.