Miller Industries vs Wabash National
MLR and WNC side by side, both in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How MLR and WNC compare
Miller Industries is the larger company, worth 1.2 times as much as Wabash National ($548M against $471M).
Miller Industries grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (−4.2% versus −7.3% for Wabash National).
Miller Industries keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 2.2% compared with −9.1% at Wabash National.
Both pay dividends: Miller Industries yields 1.7% and Wabash National 2.8%.
Miller Industries scores higher on the StockData Score (8 against 6 for Wabash National), 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 | MLR | WNC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $548M | $471M |
| Share price | $48.30 | $11.55 |
| Change, 1 year | 26.1% | 50.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 34.8% | −36.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.78 | 0.91 |
| Employees | 1,535 | 1,100 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 (better) | 6 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 32.0× | – |
| P/S | 0.7× | 0.3× (better) |
| P/B | – | 1.7× |
| EV/EBITDA | 12.1× | – |
| P/FCF | 5.1× | – |
| PEG | 8.85 | – |
| FCF yield | 19.7% (better) | −29.1% |
| Fair value | $28.33 | $20.79 |
| Margin of safety | −70.5% | 44.4% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −4.2% (better) | −7.3% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 3.9% (better) | 0.81% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −42.6% (better) | −153% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −41.9% (better) | −156% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −5.4% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 14.6% (better) | 0.88% |
| Operating margin | – | −10.4% |
| Net margin | 2.2% (better) | −9.1% |
| FCF margin | 13.5% (better) | −9.0% |
| Return on equity | – | −40.2% |
| Return on invested capital | – | −16.7% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 1.99 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −1.40 | – |
| Interest coverage | – | −6.2× |
| Current ratio | 2.50 (better) | 1.38 |
| Altman Z-score | 4.30 (better) | 1.47 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.7% | 2.8% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 54.7% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 2.1% (better) | 0.00% |
| Buyback yield | 1.8% (better) | 0.14% |
| Shareholder yield | 3.5% (better) | 2.9% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 92.6% | 92.5% |
| Held by insiders | 2.6% | 5.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | – | −$123K |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.2% | 16.6% |
Go deeper
- MLR stock overview
- MLR income statement
- MLR valuation and score
- WNC stock overview
- WNC income statement
- WNC valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.