La-Z-Boy vs MillerKnoll
LZB and MLKN side by side, both in consumer discretionary. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How LZB and MLKN compare
La-Z-Boy and MillerKnoll are about the same size, with market caps of $1.3B and $1.5B.
On earnings, MillerKnoll is cheaper: it trades at 15.5× trailing earnings, against 16.6× for La-Z-Boy.
MillerKnoll grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (1.2% versus 0.20% for La-Z-Boy).
La-Z-Boy keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 3.9% compared with 2.6% at MillerKnoll.
Both pay dividends: La-Z-Boy yields 2.9% and MillerKnoll 3.4%.
MillerKnoll scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 14 for La-Z-Boy), 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 | LZB | MLKN |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.3B | $1.5B |
| Share price | $32.94 | $21.84 |
| Change, 1 year | 6.4% | 54.9% |
| Change, 5 years | −8.4% | −48.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.91 | 1.30 |
| Employees | 10K | 11K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 | 16 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 | 3 |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 16.6× | 15.5× (better) |
| P/S | 0.6× | 0.4× (better) |
| P/B | 1.3× | 1.1× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 6.9× (better) | 7.6× |
| P/FCF | 12.9× (better) | 13.0× |
| PEG | – | 0.46 |
| FCF yield | 7.8% (better) | 7.7% |
| Fair value | $33.52 | $28.31 |
| Margin of safety | 1.7% | 22.9% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 0.20% | 1.2% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.2% | 9.3% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −11.0% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −9.2% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 1.4% (better) | −14.8% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 44.4% (better) | 39.5% |
| Operating margin | 5.0% | 5.2% (better) |
| Net margin | 3.9% (better) | 2.6% |
| FCF margin | 4.8% (better) | 3.0% |
| Return on equity | 8.0% (better) | 7.4% |
| Return on invested capital | 10.9% (better) | 6.0% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.96 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 3.26 |
| Interest coverage | 169× (better) | 2.9× |
| Current ratio | 1.66 (better) | 1.65 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.63 (better) | 1.85 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.9% | 3.4% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 47.4% | 52.3% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 16.2% (better) | 6.0% |
| Buyback yield | 4.5% (better) | −0.55% |
| Shareholder yield | 7.5% (better) | 2.9% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 102% | 96.4% |
| Held by insiders | 2.3% | 2.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$3.0M | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.2% | 4.9% |
Go deeper
- LZB stock overview
- LZB income statement
- LZB valuation and score
- MLKN stock overview
- MLKN income statement
- MLKN valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.