Lakeland Industries vs MSA Safety
LAKE and MSA side by side, both in surgical, medical, and dental instruments and supplies. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How LAKE and MSA compare
MSA Safety is the larger company, worth 73 times as much as Lakeland Industries ($6.8B against $93.5M).
MSA Safety grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.5% versus −0.35% for Lakeland Industries).
MSA Safety keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 16.1% compared with −14.0% at Lakeland Industries.
Both pay dividends: Lakeland Industries yields 0.32% and MSA Safety 1.2%.
MSA Safety scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 9 for Lakeland Industries), 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 | LAKE | MSA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $93.5M | $6.8B |
| Share price | $9.41 | $176.24 |
| Change, 1 year | −42.0% | 9.8% |
| Change, 5 years | −52.6% | 13.1% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.92 | 0.91 |
| Employees | 2,600 | 5,300 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 17 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 21.9× |
| P/S | 0.5× (better) | 3.5× |
| P/B | 0.7× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 14.7× |
| P/FCF | – | 19.2× |
| PEG | – | 1.38 |
| FCF yield | −0.71% | 5.2% (better) |
| Fair value | $32.06 | $217.09 |
| Margin of safety | 70.6% (better) | 18.8% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −0.35% | 6.5% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 3.9% | 6.8% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 13.4% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 14.7% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 17.6% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 32.6% | 47.6% (better) |
| Operating margin | −4.1% | 21.2% (better) |
| Net margin | −14.0% | 16.1% (better) |
| FCF margin | −0.35% | 18.2% (better) |
| Return on equity | −19.6% | – |
| Return on invested capital | −5.2% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.01 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 0.82 |
| Interest coverage | −3.5× | 12.7× (better) |
| Current ratio | 2.98 | 3.24 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.15 | 5.86 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 2 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.32% | 1.2% (better) |
| Payout ratio | – | 26.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 6 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 4.2% |
| Buyback yield | – | 1.9% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.32% | 3.1% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 65.5% | 91.4% |
| Held by insiders | 24.0% | 0.87% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $1.3K (better) | −$4.1M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | 14.9% | – |
Go deeper
- LAKE stock overview
- LAKE income statement
- LAKE valuation and score
- MSA stock overview
- MSA income statement
- MSA valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.