Crane vs Parker-Hannifin
CR and PH 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 CR and PH compare
Parker-Hannifin is the larger company, worth 9.9 times as much as Crane ($123B against $12.3B).
On earnings, Parker-Hannifin is cheaper: it trades at 33.4× trailing earnings, against 36.6× for Crane.
Crane grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (21.5% versus 11.9% for Parker-Hannifin).
Both pay dividends: Crane yields 0.47% and Parker-Hannifin 0.60%.
Crane scores higher on the StockData Score (12 against 11 for Parker-Hannifin), 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 | CR | PH |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $12.3B | $123B |
| Share price | $213.15 | $972.90 |
| Change, 1 year | 12.0% | 15.7% |
| Change, 5 years | 106% | 195% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.99 | 1.14 |
| Employees | 4,100 | 60K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 12 (better) | 11 |
| Valuation score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 36.6× | 33.4× (better) |
| P/S | 4.5× (better) | 5.5× |
| P/B | 5.4× (better) | 7.7× |
| EV/EBITDA | 22.3× (better) | 25.8× |
| P/FCF | – | 31.8× |
| PEG | – | 1.58 |
| FCF yield | – | 3.1% |
| Fair value | $155.63 | $595.28 |
| Margin of safety | −37.0% (better) | −63.4% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 21.5% (better) | 11.9% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | – | 8.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −6.5% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −6.7% | 3.7% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 16.4% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 41.5% (better) | 37.7% |
| Operating margin | 17.7% | 23.6% (better) |
| Net margin | 12.4% | – |
| FCF margin | – | 17.2% |
| Return on equity | 16.2% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 16.7% (better) | 15.0% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.41 (better) | 0.92 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.05 (better) | 2.63 |
| Interest coverage | 10.0× | 11.9× (better) |
| Current ratio | 2.61 (better) | 0.94 |
| Altman Z-score | 6.26 (better) | 4.62 |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | – |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.47% | 0.60% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 16.8% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 1 | 9 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 15.1% |
| Buyback yield | – | 0.70% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.47% | 1.3% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 78.4% | 92.2% |
| Held by insiders | 1.0% | 0.20% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $250K (better) | −$45.2M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.2% | 1.2% |
Go deeper
- CR stock overview
- CR income statement
- CR valuation and score
- PH stock overview
- PH income statement
- PH valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.