National Presto Industries vs TriMas
NPK and TRS 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 NPK and TRS compare
TriMas is the larger company, worth 1.4 times as much as National Presto Industries ($1.3B against $993M).
National Presto Industries grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (20.9% versus 5.8% for TriMas).
TriMas keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 135% compared with 10.0% at National Presto Industries.
Both pay dividends: National Presto Industries yields 0.72% and TriMas 0.43%.
National Presto Industries scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 16 for TriMas), 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 | NPK | TRS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $993M | $1.3B |
| Share price | $139.11 | $37.57 |
| Change, 1 year | 45.1% | 18.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 61.0% | 5.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.64 | 0.77 |
| Employees | 1,200 | 3,700 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 19 (better) | 16 |
| Valuation score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 1.5× |
| P/S | 1.7× (better) | 2.0× |
| P/B | 2.3× | 0.9× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 13.8× | 10.4× (better) |
| P/FCF | 21.3× | – |
| PEG | – | 0.07 |
| FCF yield | 4.7% (better) | −7.9% |
| Fair value | $132.93 | – |
| Margin of safety | −4.7% | – |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 20.9% (better) | 5.8% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.4% (better) | −3.5% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 48.1% | 1972% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 2148% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 18.7% | 20.5% (better) |
| Operating margin | 12.4% (better) | 8.3% |
| Net margin | 10.0% | 135% (better) |
| FCF margin | 8.1% (better) | −15.7% |
| Return on equity | 14.2% | 84.0% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 14.0% (better) | 6.3% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.27 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | −13.50 |
| Interest coverage | – | 3.1× |
| Current ratio | 4.76 | 8.03 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 9.29 (better) | 2.88 |
| Piotroski F-score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.72% (better) | 0.43% |
| Payout ratio | 12.5% | 0.66% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Buyback yield | – | 13.6% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.72% | 14.1% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 61.4% | 83.7% |
| Held by insiders | 28.1% | 19.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$418K (better) | −$875K |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.2% | 12.1% |
Go deeper
- NPK stock overview
- NPK income statement
- NPK valuation and score
- TRS stock overview
- TRS income statement
- TRS valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.