Mohawk Industries vs Interface
MHK and TILE side by side, both in consumer discretionary. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How MHK and TILE compare
Mohawk Industries is the larger company, worth 4.4 times as much as Interface ($9.4B against $2.1B).
On earnings, Interface is cheaper: it trades at 14.9× trailing earnings, against 18.5× for Mohawk Industries.
Interface grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.5% versus 4.6% for Mohawk Industries).
Interface keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 10.1% compared with 4.2% at Mohawk Industries.
Interface pays a dividend yielding 0.30%; Mohawk Industries does not pay one.
Interface scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 13 for Mohawk Industries), 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 | TILE |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $9.4B | $2.1B |
| Share price | $139.41 | $36.81 |
| Change, 1 year | 18.6% | 38.5% |
| Change, 5 years | −21.2% | 130% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.22 | 1.16 |
| Employees | 41K | 3,570 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 | 18 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 2 |
| Growth score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 18.5× | 14.9× (better) |
| P/S | 0.8× (better) | 1.5× |
| P/B | 1.1× (better) | 3.1× |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.4× (better) | 9.6× |
| P/FCF | 11.6× (better) | 17.2× |
| PEG | 0.12 (better) | 0.18 |
| FCF yield | 8.6% (better) | 5.8% |
| Fair value | $133.47 | $34.51 |
| Margin of safety | −4.5% (better) | −6.7% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 4.6% | 6.5% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 2.5% | 4.7% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −1.5% | 52.0% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 1.1% | 52.5% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −3.9% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 24.3% | 40.5% (better) |
| Operating margin | 5.1% | 13.6% (better) |
| Net margin | 4.2% | 10.1% (better) |
| FCF margin | 7.3% | 8.6% (better) |
| Return on equity | 5.5% | 23.2% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 4.9% | 20.9% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.22 (better) | 0.30 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.85 | 0.52 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 42.6× (better) | 12.5× |
| Current ratio | 1.92 | 2.53 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.06 | 4.81 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.30% |
| Payout ratio | – | 4.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 1 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | −8.8% |
| Buyback yield | 2.2% (better) | 1.6% |
| Shareholder yield | 2.2% (better) | 1.9% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 79.8% | 103% |
| Held by insiders | 16.0% | 3.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$32.1M | −$7.1M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 9.8% | 7.4% |
Go deeper
- MHK stock overview
- MHK income statement
- MHK valuation and score
- TILE stock overview
- TILE income statement
- TILE valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.