Power Solutions International vs Twin Disc
PSIX and TWIN side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How PSIX and TWIN compare
Power Solutions International is the larger company, worth 2.5 times as much as Twin Disc ($909M against $358M).
On earnings, Twin Disc is cheaper: it trades at 11.5× trailing earnings, against 12.9× for Power Solutions International.
Twin Disc grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (12.1% versus −0.16% for Power Solutions International).
Power Solutions International keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 10.4% compared with 8.0% at Twin Disc.
Twin Disc pays a dividend yielding 0.69%; Power Solutions International does not pay one.
Twin Disc scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 16 for Power Solutions International), 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 | PSIX | TWIN |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $909M | $358M |
| Share price | $39.42 | $24.63 |
| Change, 1 year | −36.4% | 51.1% |
| Change, 5 years | 800% | 85.9% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.26 | 0.97 |
| Employees | 1,000 | – |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 | 19 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 12.9× | 11.5× (better) |
| P/S | 1.3× | 0.9× (better) |
| P/B | 3.9× | 1.6× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.3× (better) | 10.9× |
| P/FCF | – | 13.8× |
| PEG | 0.11 (better) | 0.32 |
| FCF yield | – | 7.2% |
| Fair value | $51.26 | $33.66 |
| Margin of safety | 23.1% | 26.8% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −0.16% | 12.1% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 11.6% | 11.8% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −42.1% | 1903% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −42.0% | 1855% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 25.6% | 26.9% (better) |
| Operating margin | 14.9% (better) | 5.2% |
| Net margin | 10.4% (better) | 8.0% |
| FCF margin | – | 6.6% |
| Return on equity | 35.5% (better) | 16.3% |
| Return on invested capital | 53.9% (better) | 4.8% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 (better) | 0.18 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.71 | 0.38 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 17.0× (better) | 7.5× |
| Current ratio | 2.43 | 2.46 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 5.34 (better) | 3.42 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.69% |
| Payout ratio | – | 7.9% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 0.69% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 36.4% | 64.6% |
| Held by insiders | 53.4% | 8.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | – | −$418K |
| Short interest, % of float | 16.0% | 3.0% |
Go deeper
- PSIX stock overview
- PSIX income statement
- PSIX valuation and score
- TWIN stock overview
- TWIN income statement
- TWIN valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.