GrafTech International vs Forgent Power Solutions
EAF and FPS side by side, both in electronic and other electrical equipment and components, except computer equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How EAF and FPS compare
Forgent Power Solutions is the larger company, worth 25 times as much as GrafTech International ($7.5B against $303M).
Forgent Power Solutions grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (83.1% versus −2.5% for GrafTech International).
Forgent Power Solutions keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 7.4% compared with −38.4% at GrafTech International.
Forgent Power Solutions scores higher on the StockData Score (8 against 2 for GrafTech International), 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 | EAF | FPS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $303M | $7.5B |
| Share price | $11.25 | $24.57 |
| Change, 1 year | −15.0% | – |
| Change, 5 years | −91.0% | – |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.60 | – |
| Employees | 1,071 | 450 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 2 | 8 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/S | 0.6× (better) | 4.6× |
| P/B | – | 10.5× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 27.8× |
| P/FCF | – | 61.5× |
| FCF yield | −52.3% | 1.6% (better) |
| Fair value | – | $17.38 |
| Margin of safety | – | −41.3% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −2.5% | 83.1% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −16.3% | – |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 534% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | −6.7% | 34.5% (better) |
| Operating margin | −21.0% | 14.3% (better) |
| Net margin | −38.4% | 7.4% (better) |
| FCF margin | −31.1% | 7.5% (better) |
| Return on equity | – | 16.9% |
| Return on invested capital | −12.1% | 17.1% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.82 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 1.33 |
| Interest coverage | −1.1× | 4.3× (better) |
| Current ratio | 3.55 (better) | 1.46 |
| Altman Z-score | −0.85 | 3.46 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 2 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 39.1% | 55.9% |
| Held by insiders | 86.9% | – |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $50.0K (better) | −$650M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 37.6% | – |
Go deeper
- EAF stock overview
- EAF income statement
- EAF valuation and score
- FPS stock overview
- FPS income statement
- FPS valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.