Hasbro vs Mattel
HAS and MAT side by side, both in dolls, toys, games and sporting and athletic. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How HAS and MAT compare
Hasbro is the larger company, worth 3.8 times as much as Mattel ($17.3B against $4.6B).
On earnings, Mattel is cheaper: it trades at 9.4× trailing earnings, against 18.5× for Hasbro.
Hasbro grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (27.6% versus 6.4% for Mattel).
Hasbro keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 15.6% compared with 9.0% at Mattel.
Hasbro pays a dividend yielding 2.3%; Mattel does not pay one.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | HAS | MAT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $17.3B | $4.6B |
| Share price | $124.02 | $16.08 |
| Change, 1 year | 58.7% | −16.1% |
| Change, 5 years | 23.4% | −29.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.83 | 0.95 |
| Employees | 4,520 | 31K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 | 15 |
| Valuation score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 18.5× | 9.4× (better) |
| P/S | 2.8× | 0.8× (better) |
| P/B | – | 2.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | 13.7× | 9.0× (better) |
| P/FCF | 14.1× | – |
| PEG | – | 2.31 |
| FCF yield | 7.1% | – |
| Fair value | $128.43 | $23.45 |
| Margin of safety | 3.4% | 31.4% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 27.6% (better) | 6.4% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −0.37% | 3.1% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 16.3% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 27.6% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 28.8% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 78.0% (better) | 49.1% |
| Operating margin | 21.9% (better) | 9.5% |
| Net margin | 15.6% (better) | 9.0% |
| FCF margin | 20.1% | – |
| Return on equity | – | 21.8% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 11.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 1.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.82 (better) | 2.52 |
| Interest coverage | 7.8× (better) | 4.2× |
| Current ratio | 1.40 | 1.98 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 4.16 (better) | 2.81 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.3% (better) | 0.00% |
| Payout ratio | 41.3% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 0.58% | – |
| Buyback yield | – | 10.8% |
| Shareholder yield | 2.3% | 10.8% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 99.1% | 107% |
| Held by insiders | 0.64% | 18.8% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$50.7M | $422K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.6% | 12.0% |
Go deeper
- HAS stock overview
- HAS income statement
- HAS valuation and score
- MAT stock overview
- MAT income statement
- MAT valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.