Fastenal vs Sherwin Williams
FAST and SHW side by side, both in consumer discretionary. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How FAST and SHW compare
Sherwin Williams is the larger company, worth 1.3 times as much as Fastenal ($84.5B against $63.3B).
On earnings, Sherwin Williams is cheaper: it trades at 32.2× trailing earnings, against 44.5× for Fastenal.
Fastenal grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (13.5% versus 7.0% for Sherwin Williams).
Fastenal keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 15.6% compared with 10.7% at Sherwin Williams.
Both pay dividends: Fastenal yields 1.8% and Sherwin Williams 0.91%.
Fastenal scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 14 for Sherwin Williams), 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 | SHW |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $63.3B | $84.5B |
| Share price | $55.19 | $349.89 |
| Change, 1 year | 34.7% | 1.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 80.9% | 5.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.78 | 0.90 |
| Employees | 24K | 64K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 (better) | 14 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 44.5× | 32.2× (better) |
| P/S | 7.0× | 3.4× (better) |
| P/B | 15.3× (better) | 21.3× |
| EV/EBITDA | 33.9× | – |
| P/FCF | 53.8× | 27.5× (better) |
| PEG | 9.13 | 3.23 (better) |
| FCF yield | 1.9% | 3.6% (better) |
| Fair value | $28.52 | $234.30 |
| Margin of safety | −93.5% | −49.3% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 13.5% (better) | 7.0% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.7% (better) | 5.1% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 15.6% (better) | 4.1% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 15.9% (better) | 6.1% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 7.9% (better) | 6.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 44.6% | 48.6% (better) |
| Operating margin | 20.5% | – |
| Net margin | 15.6% (better) | 10.7% |
| FCF margin | 13.0% (better) | 12.4% |
| Return on equity | 35.3% | 63.7% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 36.1% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.02 (better) | 2.97 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.06 | – |
| Interest coverage | 504× | – |
| Current ratio | 3.93 (better) | 0.71 |
| Altman Z-score | 32.69 (better) | 3.14 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.8% (better) | 0.91% |
| Payout ratio | 77.7% | 29.3% |
| Years of dividend growth | 1 | 16 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 4.6% | 12.1% (better) |
| Buyback yield | – | 2.9% |
| Shareholder yield | 1.8% | 3.8% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 85.6% | 83.5% |
| Held by insiders | 0.10% | 0.32% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$5.0M (better) | −$12.7M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.3% | 2.5% |
Go deeper
- FAST stock overview
- FAST income statement
- FAST valuation and score
- SHW stock overview
- SHW income statement
- SHW valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.