Lowes Companies vs Tractor Supply
LOW and TSCO side by side, both in consumer discretionary. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How LOW and TSCO compare
Lowes Companies is the larger company, worth 6.7 times as much as Tractor Supply ($128B against $19.0B).
Lowes Companies grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (8.2% versus 3.5% for Tractor Supply).
Tractor Supply keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 11.6% compared with 7.3% at Lowes Companies.
Both pay dividends: Lowes Companies yields 1.6% and Tractor Supply 2.6%.
Tractor Supply scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 13 for Lowes Companies), 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 | LOW | TSCO |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $128B | $19.0B |
| Share price | $227.73 | $36.45 |
| Change, 1 year | −3.0% | −34.9% |
| Change, 5 years | −8.7% | −21.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.90 | 0.68 |
| Employees | 167K | 52K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 | 17 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 19.3× | – |
| P/S | 1.4× | 1.2× (better) |
| P/B | – | 7.1× |
| EV/EBITDA | 12.8× | 11.5× (better) |
| P/FCF | 18.3× (better) | 65.4× |
| PEG | 3.68 | – |
| FCF yield | 5.5% (better) | 1.5% |
| Fair value | $197.73 | $34.45 |
| Margin of safety | −15.2% | −5.8% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 8.2% (better) | 3.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −0.75% | 7.9% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −3.1% | 67.0% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −2.8% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 8.9% | 10.1% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 33.1% | 36.2% (better) |
| Operating margin | 11.4% (better) | 8.2% |
| Net margin | 7.3% | 11.6% (better) |
| FCF margin | 7.7% (better) | 1.8% |
| Return on equity | – | 70.5% |
| Return on invested capital | 34.8% (better) | 23.5% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.84 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.71 | 1.11 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 18.0× |
| Current ratio | 1.10 | 1.38 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.28 | 3.86 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.6% | 2.6% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 40.5% | 27.0% |
| Years of dividend growth | 17 (better) | 16 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 15.6% | 25.1% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 0.36% | 2.4% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 2.0% | 5.0% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 79.0% | 94.7% |
| Held by insiders | 0.11% | 0.32% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$13.2M | −$11.3M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.0% | 7.6% |
Go deeper
- LOW stock overview
- LOW income statement
- LOW valuation and score
- TSCO stock overview
- TSCO income statement
- TSCO valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.