Aebi Schmidt vs Alamo
AEBI and ALG side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How AEBI and ALG compare
Alamo is the larger company, worth 2.1 times as much as Aebi Schmidt ($1.7B against $830M).
On earnings, Alamo is cheaper: it trades at 22.1× trailing earnings, against 26.7× for Aebi Schmidt.
Aebi Schmidt grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (52.2% versus 1.8% for Alamo).
Alamo keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 4.7% compared with 1.6% at Aebi Schmidt.
Both pay dividends: Aebi Schmidt yields 1.2% and Alamo 0.96%.
Alamo scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 9 for Aebi Schmidt), 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 | AEBI | ALG |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $830M | $1.7B |
| Share price | $10.70 | $141.71 |
| Change, 1 year | −0.33% | −14.3% |
| Change, 5 years | – | −6.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.44 | 0.86 |
| Employees | 5,700 | 3,800 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 14 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Growth score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 26.7× | 22.1× (better) |
| P/S | 0.4× (better) | 1.0× |
| P/B | 1.0× (better) | 1.5× |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.8× (better) | 15.2× |
| P/FCF | 41.7× | 12.6× (better) |
| PEG | – | 113.50 |
| FCF yield | 2.4% | 7.9% (better) |
| Fair value | $13.46 | $151.77 |
| Margin of safety | 20.5% (better) | 6.6% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 52.2% (better) | 1.8% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | – | 6.6% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 195% (better) | −33.3% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 66.7% (better) | −33.5% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 12.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 19.2% | 22.9% (better) |
| Operating margin | 4.7% | 6.9% (better) |
| Net margin | 1.6% | 4.7% (better) |
| FCF margin | 1.0% | 8.3% (better) |
| Return on equity | 3.7% | 6.7% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 4.8% | 7.3% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.70 | 0.20 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.34 | 0.01 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 2.1× | 6.6× (better) |
| Current ratio | 2.08 | 4.19 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.90 | 4.64 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.2% (better) | 0.96% |
| Payout ratio | 25.1% | 20.5% |
| Years of dividend growth | 2 | 11 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 18.2% |
| Buyback yield | – | 0.56% |
| Shareholder yield | 1.2% | 1.5% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | – | 97.9% |
| Held by insiders | 66.6% | 1.3% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $349K (better) | −$964K |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.5% | 4.2% |
Go deeper
- AEBI stock overview
- AEBI income statement
- AEBI valuation and score
- ALG stock overview
- ALG income statement
- ALG valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.