Lennox International vs Middleby
LII and MIDD side by side, both in industrial and commercial machinery and computer equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How LII and MIDD compare
Lennox International is the larger company, worth 2.2 times as much as Middleby ($11.9B against $5.3B).
Middleby grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (8.4% versus −2.1% for Lennox International).
Lennox International keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 14.9% compared with −13.9% at Middleby.
Lennox International pays a dividend yielding 1.5%; Middleby does not pay one.
Lennox International scores higher on the StockData Score (20 against 9 for Middleby), 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 | LII | MIDD |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $11.9B | $5.3B |
| Share price | $344.08 | $117.59 |
| Change, 1 year | −29.5% | −9.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 13.9% | −36.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.10 | 1.12 |
| Employees | 13K | 2,393 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 20 (better) | 9 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 15.3× | – |
| P/S | 2.2× | 1.6× (better) |
| P/B | 9.2× | 2.4× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 11.5× | 10.7× (better) |
| P/FCF | 16.1× | 11.0× (better) |
| PEG | 0.85 | – |
| FCF yield | 6.2% | 9.1% (better) |
| Fair value | $483.03 | $149.01 |
| Margin of safety | 28.8% (better) | 21.1% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −2.1% | 8.4% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.4% (better) | 5.0% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −6.6% (better) | −211% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −4.8% (better) | −217% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 19.8% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 33.3% | 38.4% (better) |
| Operating margin | 19.7% (better) | 16.5% |
| Net margin | 14.9% (better) | −13.9% |
| FCF margin | 13.9% | 14.2% (better) |
| Return on equity | 68.1% (better) | −16.2% |
| Return on invested capital | 33.7% (better) | 8.5% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.22 | 0.90 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.31 (better) | 2.74 |
| Interest coverage | 18.5× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.57 | 1.99 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 5.93 (better) | 3.23 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.5% | – |
| Payout ratio | 23.1% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 10.4% | – |
| Buyback yield | 2.8% | 17.7% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 4.4% | 17.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 77.6% | 105% |
| Held by insiders | 10.6% | 9.2% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$1.4M | $15.1M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 8.7% | 4.1% |
Go deeper
- LII stock overview
- LII income statement
- LII valuation and score
- MIDD stock overview
- MIDD income statement
- MIDD valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.