Matthews International vs Worthington Enterprises
MATW and WOR side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How MATW and WOR compare
Worthington Enterprises is the larger company, worth 4.9 times as much as Matthews International ($2.9B against $587M).
Worthington Enterprises grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (18.4% versus −31.8% for Matthews International).
Worthington Enterprises keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 11.5% compared with −2.6% at Matthews International.
Both pay dividends: Matthews International yields 5.4% and Worthington Enterprises 1.3%.
Worthington Enterprises scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 8 for Matthews International), 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 | MATW | WOR |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $587M | $2.9B |
| Share price | $18.80 | $58.20 |
| Change, 1 year | −20.7% | 5.9% |
| Change, 5 years | −48.1% | 7.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.82 | 1.09 |
| Employees | 5,500 | 3,800 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 | 15 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 17.6× |
| P/S | 0.5× (better) | 2.0× |
| P/B | – | 2.7× |
| EV/EBITDA | 9.2× (better) | 22.3× |
| P/FCF | – | 14.6× |
| FCF yield | −14.0% | 6.8% (better) |
| Fair value | – | $49.01 |
| Margin of safety | – | −18.8% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −31.8% | 18.4% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −0.01% (better) | −15.3% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 52.9% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 55.4% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | −25.2% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 36.6% (better) | 27.2% |
| Operating margin | 6.3% (better) | 5.6% |
| Net margin | −2.6% | 11.5% (better) |
| FCF margin | −7.4% | 13.8% (better) |
| Return on equity | −5.7% | 16.3% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 2.9% | 5.1% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.29 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.38 | 1.79 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 1.4× | 9.7× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.76 | 2.67 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.90 | 3.30 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 5.4% (better) | 1.3% |
| Payout ratio | – | 23.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | −5.9% |
| Buyback yield | 1.0% | 1.9% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 6.4% (better) | 3.3% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 96.3% | 52.1% |
| Held by insiders | 10.2% | 37.2% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $318K (better) | −$10.0M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 18.2% | 2.6% |
Go deeper
- MATW stock overview
- MATW income statement
- MATW valuation and score
- WOR stock overview
- WOR income statement
- WOR valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.