Fastenal vs MSC Industrial Direct
FAST and MSM side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How FAST and MSM compare
Fastenal is the larger company, worth 9.4 times as much as MSC Industrial Direct ($63.7B against $6.8B).
On earnings, MSC Industrial Direct is cheaper: it trades at 30.4× trailing earnings, against 44.8× for Fastenal.
Fastenal grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (13.5% versus 6.4% for MSC Industrial Direct).
Fastenal keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 15.6% compared with 5.6% at MSC Industrial Direct.
Both pay dividends: Fastenal yields 1.8% and MSC Industrial Direct 2.9%.
Fastenal scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 13 for MSC Industrial Direct), 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 | FAST | MSM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $63.7B | $6.8B |
| Share price | $55.49 | $120.87 |
| Change, 1 year | 34.2% | 36.8% |
| Change, 5 years | 81.8% | 44.1% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.78 | 0.79 |
| Employees | 24K | 7,028 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 (better) | 13 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Health score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividend score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 44.8× | 30.4× (better) |
| P/S | 7.0× | 1.7× (better) |
| P/B | 15.3× | 4.7× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 34.1× | 17.0× (better) |
| P/FCF | 54.1× | 30.0× (better) |
| PEG | 9.18 | – |
| FCF yield | 1.8% | 3.3% (better) |
| Fair value | $28.89 | $77.53 |
| Margin of safety | −92.1% | −55.9% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 13.5% (better) | 6.4% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.7% (better) | 4.3% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 15.6% (better) | 11.7% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 15.9% (better) | 11.5% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 7.9% (better) | 0.56% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 44.6% (better) | 40.9% |
| Operating margin | 20.5% (better) | 8.0% |
| Net margin | 15.6% (better) | 5.6% |
| FCF margin | 13.0% (better) | 5.6% |
| Return on equity | 35.3% (better) | 15.8% |
| Return on invested capital | 36.1% (better) | 13.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.02 (better) | 0.33 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.06 | 0.98 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 504× (better) | 14.8× |
| Current ratio | 3.93 (better) | 1.78 |
| Altman Z-score | 32.85 (better) | 6.29 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.8% | 2.9% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 77.7% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 1 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 4.6% | – |
| Buyback yield | – | 0.21% |
| Shareholder yield | 1.8% | 3.1% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 85.6% | 83.4% |
| Held by insiders | 0.11% | 10.8% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$5.0M | $28.9M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.3% | 3.9% |
Go deeper
- FAST stock overview
- FAST income statement
- FAST valuation and score
- MSM stock overview
- MSM income statement
- MSM valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.