AZZ vs Crane NXT
AZZ and CXT 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 AZZ and CXT compare
AZZ is the larger company, worth 1.2 times as much as Crane NXT ($4.0B against $3.3B).
On earnings, AZZ is cheaper: it trades at 23.9× trailing earnings, against 26.2× for Crane NXT.
Crane NXT grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (17.5% versus 9.5% for AZZ).
AZZ keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 9.6% compared with 6.9% at Crane NXT.
Both pay dividends: AZZ yields 0.66% and Crane NXT 1.2%.
AZZ scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 11 for Crane NXT), 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 | AZZ | CXT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $4.0B | $3.3B |
| Share price | $132.49 | $57.97 |
| Change, 1 year | 30.7% | −7.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 137% | −44.1% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.03 | 0.97 |
| Employees | 3,767 | 2,200 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 (better) | 11 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 23.9× (better) | 26.2× |
| P/S | 2.3× | 1.8× (better) |
| P/B | 2.8× | 2.6× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 11.6× | 8.9× (better) |
| P/FCF | 18.5× | – |
| FCF yield | 5.4% | – |
| Fair value | $120.58 | $55.63 |
| Margin of safety | −9.9% | −4.2% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 9.5% | 17.5% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 28.0% (better) | −10.8% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −46.7% | −17.1% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −46.6% | −17.5% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 47.2% (better) | −4.1% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 24.3% | 41.2% (better) |
| Operating margin | 16.5% (better) | 12.7% |
| Net margin | 9.6% (better) | 6.9% |
| FCF margin | 12.3% | – |
| Return on equity | 12.3% (better) | 10.2% |
| Return on invested capital | 11.4% | 15.1% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.33 | 0.18 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.22 (better) | −0.05 |
| Interest coverage | 6.3× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.79 (better) | 1.31 |
| Altman Z-score | 4.42 (better) | 1.87 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.66% | 1.2% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 15.0% | 31.9% |
| Years of dividend growth | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 2.5% (better) | −16.9% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.66% | 1.2% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 94.9% | 107% |
| Held by insiders | 1.7% | 0.23% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$5.3M | $1.2M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.5% | 15.7% |
Go deeper
- AZZ stock overview
- AZZ income statement
- AZZ valuation and score
- CXT stock overview
- CXT income statement
- CXT valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.