Gorman Rupp vs Xylem
GRC and XYL 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 XYL compare
Xylem is the larger company, worth 12 times as much as Gorman Rupp ($21.6B against $1.8B).
On earnings, Xylem is cheaper: it trades at 20.8× trailing earnings, against 24.9× for Gorman Rupp.
Gorman Rupp grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.5% versus 1.9% for Xylem).
Xylem keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 11.9% compared with 10.2% at Gorman Rupp.
Both pay dividends: Gorman Rupp yields 1.1% and Xylem 1.8%.
Xylem scores higher on the StockData Score (24 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 | XYL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.8B | $21.6B |
| Share price | $69.66 | $94.18 |
| Change, 1 year | 55.4% | −37.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 53.6% | −27.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.80 | 0.98 |
| Employees | 1,415 | 22K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 | 24 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Health score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 24.9× | 20.8× (better) |
| P/S | 2.5× | 2.4× (better) |
| P/B | 4.0× | 2.1× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.9× (better) | 17.3× |
| P/FCF | 16.7× (better) | 23.5× |
| PEG | – | 0.80 |
| FCF yield | 6.0% (better) | 4.3% |
| Fair value | $67.98 | $132.86 |
| Margin of safety | −2.5% | 29.1% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.5% (better) | 1.9% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 14.4% (better) | 13.1% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 46.7% (better) | 14.1% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 46.6% (better) | 16.2% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 22.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 32.5% | 39.8% (better) |
| Operating margin | 16.1% (better) | 15.1% |
| Net margin | 10.2% | 11.9% (better) |
| FCF margin | 15.3% (better) | 10.2% |
| Return on equity | 17.0% (better) | 10.1% |
| Return on invested capital | 13.5% (better) | 9.0% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.54 | 0.28 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.40 (better) | 1.59 |
| Interest coverage | 6.0× | 36.1× (better) |
| Current ratio | 2.70 (better) | 1.39 |
| Altman Z-score | 4.87 (better) | 3.10 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.1% | 1.8% (better) |
| Payout ratio | – | 37.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 13 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 9.0% |
| Buyback yield | 0.14% | 7.3% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 1.2% | 9.1% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 66.0% | 94.9% |
| Held by insiders | 14.8% | 0.20% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$400K | $625K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.2% | 3.8% |
Go deeper
- GRC stock overview
- GRC income statement
- GRC valuation and score
- XYL stock overview
- XYL income statement
- XYL valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.