Parker-Hannifin vs Watts Water Technologies
PH and WTS 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 PH and WTS compare
Parker-Hannifin is the larger company, worth 9.8 times as much as Watts Water Technologies ($113B against $11.6B).
On earnings, Watts Water Technologies is cheaper: it trades at 30.4× trailing earnings, against 31.6× for Parker-Hannifin.
Watts Water Technologies grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (17.1% versus 8.3% for Parker-Hannifin).
Both pay dividends: Parker-Hannifin yields 0.84% and Watts Water Technologies 0.66%.
Watts Water Technologies scores higher on the StockData Score (18 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 | PH | WTS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $113B | $11.6B |
| Share price | $899.82 | $347.60 |
| Change, 1 year | 16.1% | 27.3% |
| Change, 5 years | 176% | 68.1% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.14 | 0.96 |
| Employees | 60K | 5,700 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 12 | 18 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 31.6× | 30.4× (better) |
| P/S | 5.3× | 4.3× (better) |
| P/B | 7.4× | 5.3× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 23.8× | 19.9× (better) |
| P/FCF | 29.0× (better) | 33.2× |
| PEG | 1.50 (better) | 2.82 |
| FCF yield | 3.4% (better) | 3.0% |
| Fair value | $600.32 | $240.39 |
| Margin of safety | −49.9% | −44.6% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 8.3% | 17.1% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 8.4% | 10.1% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 23.2% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 5.0% | 23.1% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 16.4% | 24.8% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 37.7% | 48.9% (better) |
| Operating margin | 23.6% (better) | 19.1% |
| Net margin | – | 14.3% |
| FCF margin | 18.2% (better) | 13.1% |
| Return on equity | – | 18.8% |
| Return on invested capital | 18.8% | 21.0% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.49 | 0.05 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.38 (better) | −0.42 |
| Interest coverage | 12.6× | 50.2× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.26 | 2.66 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 6.81 | 11.72 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | – | 8 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.84% (better) | 0.66% |
| Years of dividend growth | 9 | 13 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 15.1% | 16.7% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 1.1% (better) | 0.14% |
| Shareholder yield | 2.0% (better) | 0.80% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 92.2% | 81.2% |
| Held by insiders | 0.20% | 18.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$49.7M | −$17.4M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.2% | 2.8% |
Go deeper
- PH stock overview
- PH income statement
- PH valuation and score
- WTS stock overview
- WTS income statement
- WTS valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.