McGraw Hill vs John Wiley & Sons
MH and WLY side by side, both in printing, publishing, and allied industries. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How MH and WLY compare
John Wiley & Sons is the larger company, worth 1.2 times as much as McGraw Hill ($2.6B against $2.1B).
On earnings, John Wiley & Sons is cheaper: it trades at 13.7× trailing earnings, against 28.8× for McGraw Hill.
John Wiley & Sons grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (−0.27% versus −0.70% for McGraw Hill).
John Wiley & Sons keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 11.9% compared with 3.5% at McGraw Hill.
John Wiley & Sons pays a dividend yielding 2.8%; McGraw Hill does not pay one.
John Wiley & Sons scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 5 for McGraw Hill), 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 | MH | WLY |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $2.1B | $2.6B |
| Share price | $10.95 | $51.20 |
| Change, 1 year | −0.90% | 39.1% |
| Change, 5 years | – | −5.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.48 | 0.83 |
| Employees | 4,400 | 4,500 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 5 | 16 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 28.8× | 13.7× (better) |
| P/S | 1.0× (better) | 1.6× |
| P/B | 2.4× (better) | 3.3× |
| EV/EBITDA | 6.8× (better) | 9.6× |
| P/FCF | 8.2× (better) | 10.8× |
| PEG | – | 0.10 |
| FCF yield | 12.2% (better) | 9.2% |
| Fair value | $14.28 | $57.04 |
| Margin of safety | 23.3% (better) | 10.2% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −0.70% | −0.27% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | – | −2.9% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 104% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 111% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 9.6% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 81.7% (better) | 74.6% |
| Operating margin | 13.4% | 14.9% (better) |
| Net margin | 3.5% | 11.9% (better) |
| FCF margin | 12.3% | 14.4% (better) |
| Return on equity | 8.8% | 25.9% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 7.8% | 14.4% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 2.88 | 1.62 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.57 | 3.01 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 5.3× |
| Current ratio | 0.86 (better) | 0.64 |
| Altman Z-score | 0.47 | 2.13 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 2.8% |
| Payout ratio | – | 37.1% |
| Buyback yield | – | 3.9% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 6.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 101% | 83.0% |
| Held by insiders | 87.1% | 20.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $1.0M | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 10.6% | – |
Go deeper
- MH stock overview
- MH income statement
- MH valuation and score
- WLY stock overview
- WLY income statement
- WLY valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.