Manitowoc vs Douglas Dynamics
MTW and PLOW side by side, both in construction, mining, and materials handling. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How MTW and PLOW compare
Manitowoc and Douglas Dynamics are about the same size, with market caps of $859M and $864M.
On earnings, Douglas Dynamics is cheaper: it trades at 17.0× trailing earnings, against 33.5× for Manitowoc.
Douglas Dynamics grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (20.1% versus 10.2% for Manitowoc).
Douglas Dynamics keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 7.5% compared with 1.1% at Manitowoc.
Douglas Dynamics pays a dividend yielding 3.2%; Manitowoc does not pay one.
Douglas Dynamics scores higher on the StockData Score (21 against 5 for Manitowoc), 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 | MTW | PLOW |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $859M | $864M |
| Share price | $23.81 | $37.44 |
| Change, 1 year | 109% | 19.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 18.8% | −16.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.41 | 0.84 |
| Employees | 4,700 | 1,764 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 5 | 21 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 33.5× | 17.0× (better) |
| P/S | 0.4× (better) | 1.2× |
| P/B | 1.2× (better) | 2.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.7× (better) | 9.8× |
| P/FCF | 17.4× (better) | 17.6× |
| PEG | – | 2.69 |
| FCF yield | 5.7% (better) | 5.7% |
| Fair value | $23.19 | $41.56 |
| Margin of safety | −2.7% | 9.9% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 10.2% | 20.1% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 9.2% (better) | 6.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −54.0% | −20.7% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −53.6% | −20.9% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 19.1% | 27.3% (better) |
| Operating margin | 3.6% | 11.3% (better) |
| Net margin | 1.1% | 7.5% (better) |
| FCF margin | 2.1% | 7.0% (better) |
| Return on equity | 3.8% | 18.3% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 4.6% | 17.9% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.67 | 0.21 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.83 | 0.66 (better) |
| Current ratio | 2.11 | 2.16 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.36 | 3.08 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 3.2% |
| Payout ratio | 0.00% | 53.7% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 1.0% |
| Buyback yield | – | 0.69% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 3.8% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 83.9% | 94.8% |
| Held by insiders | 5.6% | 2.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$106K | −$78.7K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.1% | 2.7% |
Go deeper
- MTW stock overview
- MTW income statement
- MTW valuation and score
- PLOW stock overview
- PLOW income statement
- PLOW valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.