Gorman Rupp vs Twin Disc
GRC and TWIN side by side, both in general industrial machinery and equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How GRC and TWIN compare
Gorman Rupp is the larger company, worth 5.2 times as much as Twin Disc ($1.8B against $351M).
On earnings, Twin Disc is cheaper: it trades at 11.2× trailing earnings, against 24.9× for Gorman Rupp.
Twin Disc grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (12.1% versus 6.5% for Gorman Rupp).
Gorman Rupp keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 10.2% compared with 8.0% at Twin Disc.
Both pay dividends: Gorman Rupp yields 1.1% and Twin Disc 0.71%.
Twin Disc scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 15 for Gorman Rupp), 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 | GRC | TWIN |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.8B | $351M |
| Share price | $69.66 | $24.11 |
| Change, 1 year | 55.4% | 51.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 53.6% | 82.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.80 | 0.97 |
| Employees | 1,415 | – |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 | 19 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 24.9× | 11.2× (better) |
| P/S | 2.5× | 0.9× (better) |
| P/B | 4.0× | 1.6× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.9× | 10.7× (better) |
| P/FCF | 16.7× | 13.5× (better) |
| PEG | – | 0.32 |
| FCF yield | 6.0% | 7.4% (better) |
| Fair value | $67.98 | $37.89 |
| Margin of safety | −2.5% | 36.4% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.5% | 12.1% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 14.4% (better) | 11.8% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 46.7% | 1903% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 46.6% | 1855% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 32.5% (better) | 26.9% |
| Operating margin | 16.1% (better) | 5.2% |
| Net margin | 10.2% (better) | 8.0% |
| FCF margin | 15.3% (better) | 6.6% |
| Return on equity | 17.0% (better) | 16.3% |
| Return on invested capital | 13.5% (better) | 4.8% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.54 | 0.18 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.40 | 0.38 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 6.0× | 7.5× (better) |
| Current ratio | 2.70 (better) | 2.46 |
| Altman Z-score | 4.87 (better) | 3.40 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.1% (better) | 0.71% |
| Payout ratio | – | 7.9% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Buyback yield | 0.14% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 1.2% (better) | 0.71% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 66.0% | 64.6% |
| Held by insiders | 14.8% | 8.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$400K (better) | −$418K |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.2% | 3.0% |
Go deeper
- GRC stock overview
- GRC income statement
- GRC valuation and score
- TWIN stock overview
- TWIN income statement
- TWIN valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.