Sturm Ruger vs Smith & Wesson Brands
RGR and SWBI 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 RGR and SWBI compare
Sturm Ruger is the larger company, worth 1.2 times as much as Smith & Wesson Brands ($806M against $698M).
Smith & Wesson Brands grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (17.0% versus 10.6% for Sturm Ruger).
Smith & Wesson Brands keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 4.4% compared with 2.7% at Sturm Ruger.
Both pay dividends: Sturm Ruger yields 0.87% and Smith & Wesson Brands 3.3%.
Smith & Wesson Brands scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 11 for Sturm Ruger), 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 | RGR | SWBI |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $806M | $698M |
| Share price | $50.45 | $15.57 |
| Change, 1 year | 60.8% | 80.0% |
| Change, 5 years | −31.8% | −34.1% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.35 | 0.83 |
| Employees | 18 | 46 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 11 | 13 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 0 |
| Health score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 50.0× | – |
| P/S | 1.3× | 1.3× (better) |
| P/B | 2.7× | 1.9× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 18.0× | 10.1× (better) |
| P/FCF | 29.2× | 8.5× (better) |
| FCF yield | 3.4% | 11.8% (better) |
| Fair value | $27.46 | $14.26 |
| Margin of safety | −83.7% | −9.2% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 10.6% | 17.0% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −0.82% (better) | −13.1% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 530% (better) | 106% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 677% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | −38.2% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 19.9% | 27.4% (better) |
| Operating margin | 2.5% | 6.6% (better) |
| Net margin | 2.7% | 4.4% (better) |
| FCF margin | 4.6% | 14.9% (better) |
| Return on equity | 5.7% | 6.6% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 6.0% | 7.7% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Interest coverage | 75.1× | – |
| Current ratio | 3.02 | 3.62 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 9.27 (better) | 5.48 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.87% | 3.3% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 42.8% | 95.3% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | −37.5% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 0.87% | 3.3% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 59.9% | 64.8% |
| Held by insiders | 27.2% | 23.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $211K | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 9.7% | 5.0% |
Go deeper
- RGR stock overview
- RGR income statement
- RGR valuation and score
- SWBI stock overview
- SWBI income statement
- SWBI valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.