Alliance Laundry vs Tennant
ALH and TNC side by side, both in refrigeration and service industry machinery. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How ALH and TNC compare
Alliance Laundry is the larger company, worth 3.7 times as much as Tennant ($4.7B against $1.3B).
On earnings, Alliance Laundry is cheaper: it trades at 22.7× trailing earnings, against 73.9× for Tennant.
Alliance Laundry grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (7.8% versus −2.9% for Tennant).
Alliance Laundry keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 11.7% compared with 1.5% at Tennant.
Tennant pays a dividend yielding 1.7%; Alliance Laundry does not pay one.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | ALH | TNC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $4.7B | $1.3B |
| Share price | $23.63 | $74.64 |
| Change, 1 year | −11.5% | 0.88% |
| Change, 5 years | – | −9.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.44 | 0.85 |
| Employees | 3,923 | 4,484 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 | 8 |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 1 | 1 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 22.7× (better) | 73.9× |
| P/S | 2.6× | 1.0× (better) |
| P/B | 9.6× | 2.4× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 10.3× (better) | 40.0× |
| P/FCF | 16.9× | – |
| FCF yield | 5.9% (better) | −0.21% |
| Fair value | $30.76 | $35.17 |
| Margin of safety | 23.2% (better) | −112% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 7.8% (better) | −2.9% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | – | 3.8% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 78.7% (better) | −69.9% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 52.9% (better) | −68.5% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 5.5% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 38.3% | 38.8% (better) |
| Operating margin | 19.6% (better) | 3.2% |
| Net margin | 11.7% (better) | 1.5% |
| FCF margin | 15.4% (better) | −0.22% |
| Return on equity | 119% (better) | 3.1% |
| Return on invested capital | 634% (better) | 3.6% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.67 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 7.25 |
| Interest coverage | 4.3× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.35 | 2.04 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.25 | 3.01 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.00% | 1.7% (better) |
| Payout ratio | – | 119% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 16 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 6.1% |
| Buyback yield | 1.6% | 9.3% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 1.6% | 10.9% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 100.0% | 108% |
| Held by insiders | – | 6.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$599M | $882K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | – | 8.4% |
Go deeper
- ALH stock overview
- ALH income statement
- ALH valuation and score
- TNC stock overview
- TNC income statement
- TNC valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.