Taylor Devices vs Twin Disc
TAYD and TWIN side by side, both in general industrial machinery and equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How TAYD and TWIN compare
Twin Disc is the larger company, worth 1.9 times as much as Taylor Devices ($351M against $188M).
Twin Disc grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (12.1% versus −12.5% for Taylor Devices).
Taylor Devices keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 17.5% compared with 8.0% at Twin Disc.
Twin Disc pays a dividend yielding 0.71%; Taylor Devices does not pay one.
Twin Disc scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 12 for Taylor Devices), 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 | TAYD | TWIN |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $188M | $351M |
| Share price | $58.14 | $24.11 |
| Change, 1 year | 33.3% | 51.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 406% | 82.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.59 | 0.97 |
| Employees | 135 | – |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 12 | 19 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 11.2× |
| P/S | 4.8× | 0.9× (better) |
| P/B | 2.6× | 1.6× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 27.0× | 10.7× (better) |
| P/FCF | 15.5× | 13.5× (better) |
| PEG | – | 0.32 |
| FCF yield | 6.5% | 7.4% (better) |
| Fair value | $39.50 | $37.89 |
| Margin of safety | −47.2% | 36.4% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −12.5% | 12.1% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 13.1% (better) | 11.8% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −23.6% | 1903% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 1855% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 54.3% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 41.2% (better) | 26.9% |
| Operating margin | 13.2% (better) | 5.2% |
| Net margin | 17.5% (better) | 8.0% |
| FCF margin | 31.1% (better) | 6.6% |
| Return on equity | 9.9% | 16.3% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 19.7% (better) | 4.8% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.18 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 0.38 |
| Interest coverage | – | 7.5× |
| Current ratio | 8.66 (better) | 2.46 |
| Altman Z-score | 17.53 (better) | 3.40 |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.71% |
| Payout ratio | – | 7.9% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Buyback yield | −1.0% | – |
| Shareholder yield | −1.0% | 0.71% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 46.3% | 64.6% |
| Held by insiders | 2.5% | 8.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$897K | −$418K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.0% | 3.0% |
Go deeper
- TAYD stock overview
- TAYD income statement
- TAYD 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.