Installed Building Products vs MasterBrand
IBP and MBC side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How IBP and MBC compare
Installed Building Products is the larger company, worth 4.7 times as much as MasterBrand ($6.1B against $1.3B).
MasterBrand grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (12.9% versus 0.70% for Installed Building Products).
Installed Building Products keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 7.9% compared with −4.0% at MasterBrand.
Installed Building Products pays a dividend yielding 1.5%; MasterBrand does not pay one.
Installed Building Products scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 5 for MasterBrand), 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 | IBP | MBC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $6.1B | $1.3B |
| Share price | $229.00 | $6.37 |
| Change, 1 year | −13.6% | −39.7% |
| Change, 5 years | 66.7% | −39.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.18 | 1.26 |
| Employees | 10K | 12K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 (better) | 5 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 1 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 26.1× | – |
| P/S | 2.0× | 0.4× (better) |
| P/B | 8.7× | 0.7× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 16.1× | – |
| P/FCF | 24.8× | 13.5× (better) |
| PEG | 3.32 | – |
| FCF yield | 4.0% | 7.4% (better) |
| Fair value | $150.34 | $10.26 |
| Margin of safety | −52.3% | 37.9% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 0.70% | 12.9% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 12.4% | – |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −7.8% (better) | −250% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −5.4% (better) | −238% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 24.3% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 33.1% (better) | 25.2% |
| Operating margin | 11.8% (better) | −2.0% |
| Net margin | 7.9% (better) | −4.0% |
| FCF margin | 8.2% (better) | 3.1% |
| Return on equity | 34.3% (better) | −7.4% |
| Return on invested capital | 20.6% (better) | −1.9% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.51 | 0.63 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.53 | – |
| Interest coverage | 9.0× (better) | −0.8× |
| Current ratio | 3.12 (better) | 1.51 |
| Altman Z-score | 5.19 (better) | 1.50 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.5% | – |
| Payout ratio | 37.9% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 5 | – |
| Buyback yield | 2.3% (better) | 0.00% |
| Shareholder yield | 3.7% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 98.9% | 109% |
| Held by insiders | 6.8% | 2.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$126M | −$157K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 7.4% | 11.4% |
Go deeper
- IBP stock overview
- IBP income statement
- IBP valuation and score
- MBC stock overview
- MBC income statement
- MBC valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.