Lennox International vs Middleby
LII and MIDD side by side, both in refrigeration and service industry machinery. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How LII and MIDD compare
Lennox International is the larger company, worth 2.0 times as much as Middleby ($12.0B against $6.1B).
On earnings, Lennox International is cheaper: it trades at 16.3× trailing earnings, against 159× for Middleby.
Middleby grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (9.2% versus 1.9% for Lennox International).
Lennox International keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 13.8% compared with 1.2% at Middleby.
Lennox International pays a dividend yielding 1.5%; Middleby does not pay one.
Lennox International scores higher on the StockData Score (20 against 7 for Middleby), 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 | LII | MIDD |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $12.0B | $6.1B |
| Share price | $352.02 | $135.44 |
| Change, 1 year | −26.2% | 9.7% |
| Change, 5 years | 8.7% | −27.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.11 | 1.07 |
| Employees | 13K | 2,393 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 20 (better) | 7 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 16.3× (better) | 159× |
| P/S | 2.2× | 1.9× (better) |
| P/B | 9.1× | 4.6× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 11.8× | 10.9× (better) |
| P/FCF | 14.4× (better) | 16.5× |
| PEG | 0.91 | – |
| FCF yield | 6.9% (better) | 6.1% |
| Fair value | $469.35 | $151.36 |
| Margin of safety | 25.0% (better) | 10.5% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 1.9% | 9.2% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.4% (better) | 5.0% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −13.3% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −11.5% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 19.8% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 32.6% | 38.5% (better) |
| Operating margin | 18.8% (better) | 18.8% |
| Net margin | 13.8% (better) | 1.2% |
| FCF margin | 15.3% (better) | 11.5% |
| Return on equity | 59.5% (better) | 1.9% |
| Return on invested capital | 31.8% (better) | 11.4% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.23 (better) | 1.31 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.36 (better) | 2.32 |
| Interest coverage | 16.2× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.21 | 2.00 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 5.73 (better) | 4.07 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.5% | – |
| Payout ratio | 24.4% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 10.4% | – |
| Buyback yield | 3.8% | 14.7% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 5.3% | 14.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 78.4% | 105% |
| Held by insiders | 10.7% | 9.3% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$1.5M | $15.1M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 8.9% | 3.7% |
Go deeper
- LII stock overview
- LII income statement
- LII valuation and score
- MIDD stock overview
- MIDD income statement
- MIDD valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.