Mueller Water Products vs Parker-Hannifin
MWA and PH side by side, both in fabricated metal products, except machinery and transportation equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How MWA and PH compare
Parker-Hannifin is the larger company, worth 32 times as much as Mueller Water Products ($113B against $3.6B).
On earnings, Mueller Water Products is cheaper: it trades at 16.2× trailing earnings, against 31.6× for Parker-Hannifin.
Parker-Hannifin grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (8.3% versus 5.9% for Mueller Water Products).
Both pay dividends: Mueller Water Products yields 1.2% and Parker-Hannifin 0.84%.
Mueller Water Products scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 12 for Parker-Hannifin), 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 | MWA | PH |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.6B | $113B |
| Share price | $22.79 | $899.82 |
| Change, 1 year | −11.3% | 16.1% |
| Change, 5 years | 35.2% | 176% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.00 | 1.14 |
| Employees | 3,500 | 60K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 19 (better) | 12 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 3 | 3 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 16.2× (better) | 31.6× |
| P/S | 2.4× (better) | 5.3× |
| P/B | – | 7.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | 10.4× (better) | 23.8× |
| P/FCF | 19.8× (better) | 29.0× |
| PEG | 0.44 (better) | 1.50 |
| FCF yield | 5.0% (better) | 3.4% |
| Fair value | $32.30 | $600.32 |
| Margin of safety | 29.4% (better) | −49.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.9% | 8.3% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 8.2% | 8.4% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 49.0% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 50.0% (better) | 5.0% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 16.4% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 37.9% (better) | 37.7% |
| Operating margin | 19.4% | 23.6% (better) |
| Net margin | 15.0% | – |
| FCF margin | 12.1% | 18.2% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | – | 18.8% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.49 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.13 | 1.38 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 16.2× (better) | 12.6× |
| Current ratio | 4.64 (better) | 1.26 |
| Altman Z-score | 4.35 | 6.81 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 | – |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.2% (better) | 0.84% |
| Payout ratio | 19.5% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 11 (better) | 9 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 5.0% | 15.1% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 0.37% | 1.1% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 1.6% | 2.0% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 96.2% | 92.2% |
| Held by insiders | 0.52% | 0.20% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$4.0M (better) | −$49.7M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.9% | 1.2% |
Go deeper
- MWA stock overview
- MWA income statement
- MWA valuation and score
- PH stock overview
- PH income statement
- PH valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.