Mayville Engineering vs Park Ohio
MEC and PKOH side by side, both in fabricated metal products, except machinery and transportation equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How MEC and PKOH compare
Park Ohio is the larger company, worth 1.9 times as much as Mayville Engineering ($682M against $358M).
Mayville Engineering grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (14.8% versus 7.7% for Park Ohio).
Park Ohio keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 2.0% compared with −2.3% at Mayville Engineering.
Park Ohio pays a dividend yielding 1.1%; Mayville Engineering does not pay one.
Park Ohio scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 6 for Mayville Engineering), 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 | MEC | PKOH |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $358M | $682M |
| Share price | $14.02 | $47.06 |
| Change, 1 year | −16.8% | 137% |
| Change, 5 years | −9.6% | 117% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.92 | 1.24 |
| Employees | 2,400 | 6,300 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 6 | 15 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 19.1× |
| P/S | 0.6× | 0.4× (better) |
| P/B | 1.1× (better) | 1.7× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 5.6× |
| P/FCF | – | 32.5× |
| FCF yield | −1.9% | 3.1% (better) |
| Fair value | $22.81 | $55.98 |
| Margin of safety | 38.5% (better) | 15.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 14.8% (better) | 7.7% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 8.9% (better) | 6.8% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −216% | 49.8% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −219% | 46.4% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 9.2% | 17.6% (better) |
| Operating margin | −1.4% | 4.7% (better) |
| Net margin | −2.3% | 2.0% (better) |
| FCF margin | −1.1% | 1.2% (better) |
| Return on equity | −5.0% | 9.0% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −2.4% | 19.7% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.02 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | −0.46 |
| Interest coverage | −0.6× | 1.6× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.74 | 2.44 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.98 | 2.12 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 1.1% |
| Payout ratio | – | 20.6% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 14.9% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 1.1% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 84.5% | 59.1% |
| Held by insiders | 3.4% | 39.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$3.5M (better) | −$4.8M |
| Short interest, % of float | 11.3% | 2.7% |
Go deeper
- MEC stock overview
- MEC income statement
- MEC valuation and score
- PKOH stock overview
- PKOH income statement
- PKOH valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.