Krispy Kreme vs Tootsie Roll Industries
DNUT and TR side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How DNUT and TR compare
Tootsie Roll Industries is the larger company, worth 4.2 times as much as Krispy Kreme ($2.9B against $680M).
Tootsie Roll Industries grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (0.20% versus −7.5% for Krispy Kreme).
Tootsie Roll Industries keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 11.4% compared with −5.9% at Krispy Kreme.
Tootsie Roll Industries pays a dividend yielding 0.93%; Krispy Kreme does not pay one.
Tootsie Roll Industries scores higher on the StockData Score (12 against 4 for Krispy Kreme), 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 | DNUT | TR |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $680M | $2.9B |
| Share price | $3.92 | $38.28 |
| Change, 1 year | −2.7% | 0.30% |
| Change, 5 years | −71.6% | 38.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.05 | 0.27 |
| Employees | 23K | 2,100 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 4 | 12 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 0 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 33.0× |
| P/S | 0.5× (better) | 3.9× |
| P/B | 1.1× (better) | 3.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | 17.1× (better) | 27.6× |
| P/FCF | 37.9× (better) | 53.4× |
| FCF yield | 2.6% (better) | 1.9% |
| Fair value | $3.50 | $25.89 |
| Margin of safety | −12.1% (better) | −47.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −7.5% | 0.20% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.3% | 9.2% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | −11.5% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | −7.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 33.8% |
| Operating margin | −2.2% | 10.9% (better) |
| Net margin | −5.9% | 11.4% (better) |
| FCF margin | 1.3% | 7.4% (better) |
| Return on equity | −13.1% | 8.9% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −1.6% | 7.3% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.41 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 9.42 | – |
| Current ratio | 0.39 | 2.67 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 0.13 | 6.22 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.00% | 0.93% (better) |
| Payout ratio | – | 32.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | – |
| Buyback yield | 0.13% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 0.13% | 0.93% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 47.4% | 17.1% |
| Held by insiders | 90.7% | 59.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $3.0M | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 114% | – |
Go deeper
- DNUT stock overview
- DNUT income statement
- DNUT valuation and score
- TR stock overview
- TR income statement
- TR valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.