Illinois Tool Works vs Regal Rexnord
ITW and RRX 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 ITW and RRX compare
Illinois Tool Works is the larger company, worth 7.6 times as much as Regal Rexnord ($79.3B against $10.5B).
Illinois Tool Works grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (4.3% versus 3.5% for Regal Rexnord).
Both pay dividends: Illinois Tool Works yields 2.4% and Regal Rexnord 0.89%.
Regal Rexnord scores higher on the StockData Score (10 against 9 for Illinois Tool Works), 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 | ITW | RRX |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $79.3B | $10.5B |
| Share price | $278.55 | $157.24 |
| Change, 1 year | 15.1% | 4.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 19.0% | −4.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.83 | 1.13 |
| Employees | 43K | 29K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 10 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 32.4× |
| P/S | 4.8× | 1.7× (better) |
| P/B | – | 1.5× |
| EV/EBITDA | 20.2× (better) | 20.7× |
| P/FCF | 27.2× | 22.5× (better) |
| FCF yield | 3.7% | 4.5% (better) |
| Fair value | $223.22 | $145.09 |
| Margin of safety | −24.8% | −8.4% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 4.3% (better) | 3.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 5.0% | 15.3% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 29.4% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 29.0% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 9.6% (better) | −1.8% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 53.0% (better) | 37.8% |
| Operating margin | 26.5% (better) | 11.7% |
| Net margin | – | 5.4% |
| FCF margin | 17.7% (better) | 7.7% |
| Return on equity | – | 4.8% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 5.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.67 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.03 (better) | 5.90 |
| Interest coverage | 14.5× (better) | 2.1× |
| Current ratio | 1.11 | 2.28 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 8.03 (better) | 1.91 |
| Piotroski F-score | – | 8 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.4% (better) | 0.89% |
| Payout ratio | – | 28.7% |
| Years of dividend growth | 12 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 7.0% (better) | 3.1% |
| Buyback yield | 2.3% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 4.6% (better) | 0.89% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 85.5% | 108% |
| Held by insiders | 0.29% | 0.56% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$65.4M | −$27.7M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.2% | 5.6% |
Go deeper
- ITW stock overview
- ITW income statement
- ITW valuation and score
- RRX stock overview
- RRX income statement
- RRX valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.