Kennametal vs Timken
KMT and TKR side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How KMT and TKR compare
Timken is the larger company, worth 4.1 times as much as Kennametal ($7.5B against $1.8B).
On earnings, Kennametal is cheaper: it trades at 3.2× trailing earnings, against 27.0× for Timken.
Kennametal grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (32.5% versus 5.9% for Timken).
Kennametal keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 22.5% compared with 5.9% at Timken.
Both pay dividends: Kennametal yields 2.5% and Timken 1.3%.
Kennametal scores higher on the StockData Score (22 against 13 for Timken), 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 | KMT | TKR |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.8B | $7.5B |
| Share price | $23.99 | $108.91 |
| Change, 1 year | −13.2% | 38.5% |
| Change, 5 years | −38.1% | 52.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.08 | 1.01 |
| Employees | 8,073 | 19K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 22 (better) | 13 |
| Valuation score | 6 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 3.2× (better) | 27.0× |
| P/S | 0.7× (better) | 1.6× |
| P/B | 1.0× (better) | 2.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | 2.8× (better) | 12.1× |
| P/FCF | – | 17.0× |
| PEG | 0.07 | – |
| FCF yield | −15.7% | 5.9% (better) |
| Fair value | $171.75 | $99.17 |
| Margin of safety | 86.0% (better) | −9.8% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 32.5% (better) | 5.9% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 5.1% | 5.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 526% (better) | −4.7% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 521% (better) | −4.5% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 46.7% (better) | 2.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 50.6% (better) | 31.3% |
| Operating margin | 31.0% (better) | 11.0% |
| Net margin | 22.5% (better) | 5.9% |
| FCF margin | −10.9% | 9.2% (better) |
| Return on equity | 38.0% (better) | 8.9% |
| Return on invested capital | 28.2% (better) | 8.3% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.60 (better) | 0.61 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.86 (better) | 1.99 |
| Interest coverage | 24.1× (better) | 5.1× |
| Current ratio | 3.45 (better) | 2.56 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.10 | 3.23 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.5% (better) | 1.3% |
| Payout ratio | 10.3% | 35.2% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 12 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 0.00% | 4.2% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 0.01% | 1.6% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 2.5% | 2.9% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 105% | 94.6% |
| Held by insiders | 1.3% | 2.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$5.2M (better) | −$16.9M |
| Short interest, % of float | 7.2% | 6.6% |
Go deeper
- KMT stock overview
- KMT income statement
- KMT valuation and score
- TKR stock overview
- TKR income statement
- TKR valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.