Snap-on vs Stanley Black & Decker
SNA and SWK side by side, both in cutlery, handtools, and general hardware. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How SNA and SWK compare
Snap-on is the larger company, worth 1.2 times as much as Stanley Black & Decker ($18.4B against $15.6B).
On earnings, Snap-on is cheaper: it trades at 18.1× trailing earnings, against 25.2× for Stanley Black & Decker.
Snap-on grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (4.0% versus 0.57% for Stanley Black & Decker).
Snap-on keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 19.6% compared with 4.1% at Stanley Black & Decker.
Both pay dividends: Snap-on yields 2.7% and Stanley Black & Decker 3.2%.
Snap-on scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 12 for Stanley Black & Decker), 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 | SNA | SWK |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $18.4B | $15.6B |
| Share price | $355.66 | $103.44 |
| Change, 1 year | 5.5% | 47.9% |
| Change, 5 years | 67.8% | −43.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.74 | 1.21 |
| Employees | 13K | 44K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 (better) | 12 |
| Valuation score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 18.1× (better) | 25.2× |
| P/S | 3.5× | 1.0× (better) |
| P/B | 3.0× | 1.7× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 13.2× | 11.7× (better) |
| P/FCF | – | 12.1× |
| PEG | 4.04 | – |
| FCF yield | – | 8.3% |
| Fair value | $327.47 | $99.73 |
| Margin of safety | −8.6% | −3.7% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 4.0% (better) | 0.57% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 5.5% (better) | 3.5% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 3.4% | 29.7% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 4.5% | 29.7% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 10.9% (better) | −18.7% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 31.9% |
| Operating margin | 25.4% | – |
| Net margin | 19.6% (better) | 4.1% |
| FCF margin | – | 8.5% |
| Return on equity | 17.6% (better) | 6.9% |
| Return on invested capital | 19.6% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.15 (better) | 0.53 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.56 | 2.47 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 26.6× | – |
| Current ratio | 3.43 (better) | 1.43 |
| Altman Z-score | 7.22 (better) | 2.30 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.7% | 3.2% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 47.5% | 81.0% |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 | 17 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 14.7% (better) | 3.5% |
| Buyback yield | 1.9% (better) | 1.7% |
| Shareholder yield | 4.7% | 4.9% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 96.9% | 98.6% |
| Held by insiders | 2.4% | 0.30% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$61.5M | −$918K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 7.2% | 4.8% |
Go deeper
- SNA stock overview
- SNA income statement
- SNA valuation and score
- SWK stock overview
- SWK income statement
- SWK valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.