Middleby vs Standex International
MIDD and SXI 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 MIDD and SXI compare
Middleby is the larger company, worth 2.1 times as much as Standex International ($6.1B against $2.9B).
On earnings, Standex International is cheaper: it trades at 25.6× trailing earnings, against 159× for Middleby.
Middleby grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (9.2% versus 8.3% for Standex International).
Standex International keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 12.5% compared with 1.2% at Middleby.
Standex International pays a dividend yielding 0.42%; Middleby does not pay one.
Standex International scores higher on the StockData Score (18 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 | MIDD | SXI |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $6.1B | $2.9B |
| Share price | $135.44 | $240.79 |
| Change, 1 year | 9.7% | 2.6% |
| Change, 5 years | −27.8% | 112% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.07 | 0.95 |
| Employees | 2,393 | 4,100 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 7 | 18 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 3 | 3 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 159× | 25.6× (better) |
| P/S | 1.9× (better) | 3.2× |
| P/B | 4.6× | 3.7× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 10.9× (better) | 13.7× |
| P/FCF | 16.5× (better) | 46.3× |
| FCF yield | 6.1% (better) | 2.2% |
| Fair value | $151.36 | $252.56 |
| Margin of safety | 10.5% (better) | 4.7% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 9.2% (better) | 8.3% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 5.0% | 6.3% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 116% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 115% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 23.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 38.5% | 42.4% (better) |
| Operating margin | 18.8% | 22.5% (better) |
| Net margin | 1.2% | 12.5% (better) |
| FCF margin | 11.5% (better) | 6.9% |
| Return on equity | 1.9% | 15.3% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 11.4% | 13.8% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.31 | 0.67 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.32 | 1.65 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 7.0× |
| Current ratio | 2.00 | 3.19 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 4.07 | 4.72 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.42% |
| Payout ratio | – | 14.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 1 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 7.3% |
| Buyback yield | 14.7% (better) | 0.17% |
| Shareholder yield | 14.7% (better) | 0.59% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 105% | 105% |
| Held by insiders | 9.3% | 1.8% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $15.1M (better) | −$9.6M |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.7% | 5.1% |
Go deeper
- MIDD stock overview
- MIDD income statement
- MIDD valuation and score
- SXI stock overview
- SXI income statement
- SXI valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.