Lifetime Brands vs Stanley Black & Decker
LCUT and SWK 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 SWK compare
Stanley Black & Decker is the larger company, worth 80 times as much as Lifetime Brands ($15.6B against $194M).
On earnings, Lifetime Brands is cheaper: it trades at 5.9× trailing earnings, against 25.2× for Stanley Black & Decker.
Stanley Black & Decker grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (0.57% versus −1.5% for Lifetime Brands).
Lifetime Brands keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 4.8% compared with 4.1% at Stanley Black & Decker.
Both pay dividends: Lifetime Brands yields 2.5% and Stanley Black & Decker 3.2%.
Lifetime Brands scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 12 for Stanley Black & Decker), 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 | SWK |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $194M | $15.6B |
| Share price | $8.46 | $103.44 |
| Change, 1 year | 135% | 47.9% |
| Change, 5 years | −55.9% | −43.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.97 | 1.21 |
| Employees | 1,080 | 44K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 18 (better) | 12 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 4 | 4 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 5.9× (better) | 25.2× |
| P/S | 0.3× (better) | 1.0× |
| P/B | 0.9× (better) | 1.7× |
| EV/EBITDA | 2.4× (better) | 11.7× |
| P/FCF | 9.4× (better) | 12.1× |
| FCF yield | 10.7% (better) | 8.3% |
| Fair value | $24.46 | $99.73 |
| Margin of safety | 65.4% (better) | −3.7% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −1.5% | 0.57% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −3.4% | 3.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 29.7% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 29.7% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | −18.7% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 43.4% (better) | 31.9% |
| Operating margin | 8.5% | – |
| Net margin | 4.8% (better) | 4.1% |
| FCF margin | 3.1% | 8.5% (better) |
| Return on equity | 15.8% (better) | 6.9% |
| Return on invested capital | 24.1% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.53 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.07 | 2.47 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 3.0× | – |
| Current ratio | 2.11 (better) | 1.43 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.93 | 2.30 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.5% | 3.2% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 12.1% | 81.0% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 17 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 0.00% | 3.5% (better) |
| Buyback yield | – | 1.7% |
| Shareholder yield | 2.5% | 4.9% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 43.4% | 98.6% |
| Held by insiders | 47.8% | 0.30% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$355K (better) | −$918K |
| Short interest, % of float | 12.0% | 4.8% |
Go deeper
- LCUT stock overview
- LCUT income statement
- LCUT valuation and score
- SWK stock overview
- SWK income statement
- SWK valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.