Masco vs Mohawk Industries
MAS and MHK side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How MAS and MHK compare
Masco is the larger company, worth 1.7 times as much as Mohawk Industries ($15.9B against $9.4B).
On earnings, Mohawk Industries is cheaper: it trades at 18.5× trailing earnings, against 18.5× for Masco.
Mohawk Industries grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (4.6% versus −0.56% for Masco).
Masco keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 11.6% compared with 4.2% at Mohawk Industries.
Masco pays a dividend yielding 1.6%; Mohawk Industries does not pay one.
Masco scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 13 for Mohawk 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 | MAS | MHK |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $15.9B | $9.4B |
| Share price | $80.64 | $139.41 |
| Change, 1 year | 23.6% | 18.6% |
| Change, 5 years | 25.7% | −21.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.02 | 1.22 |
| Employees | 18K | 41K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 (better) | 13 |
| Valuation score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 3 | 3 |
| Health score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 18.5× | 18.5× (better) |
| P/S | 2.1× | 0.8× (better) |
| P/B | – | 1.1× |
| EV/EBITDA | 12.7× | 8.4× (better) |
| P/FCF | 14.1× | 11.6× (better) |
| PEG | 8.96 | 0.12 (better) |
| FCF yield | 7.1% | 8.6% (better) |
| Fair value | $78.43 | $133.47 |
| Margin of safety | −2.8% (better) | −4.5% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −0.56% | 4.6% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 1.0% | 2.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 9.9% (better) | −1.5% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 15.7% (better) | 1.1% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −3.4% (better) | −3.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 37.0% (better) | 24.3% |
| Operating margin | 17.5% (better) | 5.1% |
| Net margin | 11.6% (better) | 4.2% |
| FCF margin | 14.8% (better) | 7.3% |
| Return on equity | – | 5.5% |
| Return on invested capital | 42.2% (better) | 4.9% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.22 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.81 | 0.85 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 13.0× | 42.6× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.86 | 1.92 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 4.05 (better) | 3.06 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.6% | – |
| Payout ratio | 29.2% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 12 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 17.9% | – |
| Buyback yield | 5.9% (better) | 2.2% |
| Shareholder yield | 7.4% (better) | 2.2% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 102% | 79.8% |
| Held by insiders | 0.33% | 16.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$5.1M (better) | −$32.1M |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.2% | 9.8% |
Go deeper
- MAS stock overview
- MAS income statement
- MAS valuation and score
- MHK stock overview
- MHK income statement
- MHK valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.