Lifetime Brands vs Snap-on
LCUT and SNA side by side, both in cutlery, handtools, and general hardware. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How LCUT and SNA compare
Snap-on is the larger company, worth 95 times as much as Lifetime Brands ($18.4B against $194M).
On earnings, Lifetime Brands is cheaper: it trades at 5.9× trailing earnings, against 18.1× for Snap-on.
Snap-on grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (4.0% versus −1.5% for Lifetime Brands).
Snap-on keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 19.6% compared with 4.8% at Lifetime Brands.
Both pay dividends: Lifetime Brands yields 2.5% and Snap-on 2.7%.
Lifetime Brands scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 16 for Snap-on), 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 | LCUT | SNA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $194M | $18.4B |
| Share price | $8.46 | $355.66 |
| Change, 1 year | 135% | 5.5% |
| Change, 5 years | −55.9% | 67.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.97 | 0.74 |
| Employees | 1,080 | 13K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 18 (better) | 16 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 5.9× (better) | 18.1× |
| P/S | 0.3× (better) | 3.5× |
| P/B | 0.9× (better) | 3.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | 2.4× (better) | 13.2× |
| P/FCF | 9.4× | – |
| PEG | – | 4.04 |
| FCF yield | 10.7% | – |
| Fair value | $24.46 | $327.47 |
| Margin of safety | 65.4% (better) | −8.6% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −1.5% | 4.0% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −3.4% | 5.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 3.4% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 4.5% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 10.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 43.4% | – |
| Operating margin | 8.5% | 25.4% (better) |
| Net margin | 4.8% | 19.6% (better) |
| FCF margin | 3.1% | – |
| Return on equity | 15.8% | 17.6% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 24.1% (better) | 19.6% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.15 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.07 | −0.56 |
| Interest coverage | 3.0× | 26.6× (better) |
| Current ratio | 2.11 | 3.43 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.93 | 7.22 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.5% | 2.7% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 12.1% | 47.5% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 16 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 0.00% | 14.7% (better) |
| Buyback yield | – | 1.9% |
| Shareholder yield | 2.5% | 4.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 43.4% | 96.9% |
| Held by insiders | 47.8% | 2.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$355K (better) | −$61.5M |
| Short interest, % of float | 12.0% | 7.2% |
Go deeper
- LCUT stock overview
- LCUT income statement
- LCUT valuation and score
- SNA stock overview
- SNA income statement
- SNA valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.