Proto Labs vs TriMas
PRLB 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 PRLB and TRS compare
Proto Labs is the larger company, worth 1.2 times as much as TriMas ($1.6B against $1.4B).
On earnings, TriMas is cheaper: it trades at 1.6× trailing earnings, against 48.3× for Proto Labs.
Proto Labs grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (11.8% versus 5.0% for TriMas).
TriMas keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 136% compared with 6.0% at Proto Labs.
TriMas pays a dividend yielding 0.42%; Proto Labs does not pay one.
TriMas scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 14 for Proto Labs), 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 | PRLB | TRS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.6B | $1.4B |
| Share price | $69.11 | $38.08 |
| Change, 1 year | 41.0% | 20.6% |
| Change, 5 years | 30.6% | 6.9% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.29 | 0.77 |
| Employees | 2,280 | 3,700 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 | 15 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Performance score | 3 | 3 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 48.3× | 1.6× (better) |
| P/S | 2.8× | 2.1× (better) |
| P/B | 2.4× | 0.9× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 20.0× (better) | 51.3× |
| P/FCF | 33.9× | – |
| PEG | – | 0.07 |
| FCF yield | 2.9% (better) | −0.73% |
| Fair value | $46.68 | $23.46 |
| Margin of safety | −48.1% (better) | −62.3% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 11.8% (better) | 5.0% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.2% (better) | −3.5% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 136% | 2326% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 134% | 2541% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −14.2% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 45.2% (better) | 21.0% |
| Operating margin | 7.3% (better) | 1.5% |
| Net margin | 6.0% | 136% (better) |
| FCF margin | 8.4% (better) | −1.5% |
| Return on equity | 5.1% | 83.9% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 5.6% (better) | 1.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.28 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | −83.39 |
| Interest coverage | – | 0.6× |
| Current ratio | 3.65 | 5.44 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 10.97 (better) | 2.58 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.42% |
| Payout ratio | – | 0.69% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Buyback yield | 0.99% | 12.8% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 0.99% | 13.2% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 94.2% | 83.7% |
| Held by insiders | 1.9% | 19.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$3.1M | −$875K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.6% | 12.1% |
Go deeper
- PRLB stock overview
- PRLB income statement
- PRLB 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.