Helios Technologies vs Parker-Hannifin
HLIO and PH side by side, both in fabricated metal products, except machinery and transportation equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How HLIO and PH compare
Parker-Hannifin is the larger company, worth 77 times as much as Helios Technologies ($121B against $1.6B).
On earnings, Helios Technologies is cheaper: it trades at 20.1× trailing earnings, against 32.9× for Parker-Hannifin.
Parker-Hannifin grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (11.9% versus 11.5% for Helios Technologies).
Both pay dividends: Helios Technologies yields 0.94% and Parker-Hannifin 0.61%.
Helios Technologies scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 11 for Parker-Hannifin), 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 | HLIO | PH |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.6B | $121B |
| Share price | $47.69 | $957.98 |
| Change, 1 year | −10.2% | 11.7% |
| Change, 5 years | −56.5% | 191% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.19 | 1.13 |
| Employees | 2,300 | 60K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 19 (better) | 11 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 20.1× (better) | 32.9× |
| P/S | 1.7× (better) | 5.4× |
| P/B | 1.7× (better) | 7.6× |
| EV/EBITDA | 10.3× (better) | 25.4× |
| P/FCF | 13.0× (better) | 31.3× |
| PEG | – | 1.56 |
| FCF yield | 7.7% (better) | 3.2% |
| Fair value | $56.94 | $591.75 |
| Margin of safety | 16.3% (better) | −61.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 11.5% | 11.9% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 9.9% (better) | 8.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 133% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 135% (better) | 3.7% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 26.9% (better) | 16.4% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 33.5% | 37.7% (better) |
| Operating margin | 12.9% | 23.6% (better) |
| Net margin | 8.7% | – |
| FCF margin | 13.4% | 17.2% (better) |
| Return on equity | 8.5% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 7.6% | 15.0% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.35 (better) | 0.92 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.44 (better) | 2.63 |
| Interest coverage | – | 11.9× |
| Current ratio | 2.62 (better) | 0.94 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.26 | 4.58 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 | – |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.94% (better) | 0.61% |
| Payout ratio | 17.7% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 9 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 0.00% | 15.1% (better) |
| Buyback yield | −0.15% | 0.71% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 0.80% | 1.3% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 97.8% | 92.2% |
| Held by insiders | 0.69% | 0.20% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$1.2M (better) | −$45.2M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.3% | 1.2% |
Go deeper
- HLIO stock overview
- HLIO income statement
- HLIO valuation and score
- PH stock overview
- PH income statement
- PH valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.