Mohawk Industries vs Owens Corning
MHK and OC side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How MHK and OC compare
Mohawk Industries and Owens Corning are about the same size, with market caps of $9.4B and $9.6B.
Mohawk Industries grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (4.6% versus −7.2% for Owens Corning).
Mohawk Industries keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 4.2% compared with −6.8% at Owens Corning.
Owens Corning pays a dividend yielding 2.6%; Mohawk Industries does not pay one.
Mohawk Industries scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 6 for Owens Corning), 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 | MHK | OC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $9.4B | $9.6B |
| Share price | $139.41 | $121.15 |
| Change, 1 year | 18.6% | −2.8% |
| Change, 5 years | −21.2% | 27.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.22 | 1.25 |
| Employees | 41K | 25K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 (better) | 6 |
| Valuation score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 18.5× | – |
| P/S | 0.8× (better) | 1.0× |
| P/B | 1.1× (better) | 2.5× |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.4× (better) | 17.9× |
| P/FCF | 11.6× | 10.7× (better) |
| PEG | 0.12 | – |
| FCF yield | 8.6% | 9.4% (better) |
| Fair value | $133.47 | $76.61 |
| Margin of safety | −4.5% (better) | −58.1% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 4.6% (better) | −7.2% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 2.5% | 7.4% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −1.5% (better) | −302% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 1.1% (better) | −311% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −3.9% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 24.3% | 26.0% (better) |
| Operating margin | 5.1% (better) | 0.51% |
| Net margin | 4.2% (better) | −6.8% |
| FCF margin | 7.3% | 9.1% (better) |
| Return on equity | 5.5% (better) | −15.0% |
| Return on invested capital | 4.9% (better) | 0.43% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.22 (better) | 1.14 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.85 (better) | 5.28 |
| Interest coverage | 42.6× (better) | 0.1× |
| Current ratio | 1.92 (better) | 1.16 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.06 (better) | 1.97 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 3 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 2.6% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 12 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 23.9% |
| Buyback yield | 2.2% | 7.1% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 2.2% | 9.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 79.8% | 106% |
| Held by insiders | 16.0% | 1.3% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$32.1M | −$447K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | 9.8% | 3.1% |
Go deeper
- MHK stock overview
- MHK income statement
- MHK valuation and score
- OC stock overview
- OC income statement
- OC valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.