MasterBrand vs MillerKnoll
MBC 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 MBC and MLKN compare
MasterBrand and MillerKnoll are about the same size, with market caps of $1.3B and $1.5B.
MasterBrand grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (12.9% versus 1.2% for MillerKnoll).
MillerKnoll keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 2.6% compared with −4.0% at MasterBrand.
MillerKnoll pays a dividend yielding 3.4%; MasterBrand does not pay one.
MillerKnoll scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 5 for MasterBrand), 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 | MBC | MLKN |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.3B | $1.5B |
| Share price | $6.63 | $21.84 |
| Change, 1 year | −38.0% | 54.9% |
| Change, 5 years | −36.9% | −48.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.28 | 1.30 |
| Employees | 12K | 11K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 5 | 16 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 1 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 15.5× |
| P/S | 0.4× | 0.4× (better) |
| P/B | 0.7× (better) | 1.1× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 7.6× |
| P/FCF | 14.0× | 13.0× (better) |
| PEG | – | 0.46 |
| FCF yield | 7.1% | 7.7% (better) |
| Fair value | $10.38 | $28.31 |
| Margin of safety | 36.1% (better) | 22.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 12.9% (better) | 1.2% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | – | 9.3% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −250% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −238% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | −14.8% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 25.2% | 39.5% (better) |
| Operating margin | −2.0% | 5.2% (better) |
| Net margin | −4.0% | 2.6% (better) |
| FCF margin | 3.1% (better) | 3.0% |
| Return on equity | −7.4% | 7.4% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −1.9% | 6.0% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.63 (better) | 0.96 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 3.26 |
| Interest coverage | −0.8× | 2.9× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.51 | 1.65 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.51 | 1.85 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 3.4% |
| Payout ratio | – | 52.3% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 6.0% |
| Buyback yield | 0.00% (better) | −0.55% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 2.9% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 109% | 96.4% |
| Held by insiders | 2.1% | 2.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$157K | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 11.4% | 4.9% |
Go deeper
- MBC stock overview
- MBC income statement
- MBC 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.