Middleby vs Toro
MIDD and TTC side by side, both in industrial and commercial machinery and computer equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How MIDD and TTC compare
Toro is the larger company, worth 1.6 times as much as Middleby ($10.2B against $6.3B).
Middleby grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (8.4% versus 5.2% for Toro).
Toro keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 7.6% compared with −13.9% at Middleby.
Toro pays a dividend yielding 1.5%; Middleby does not pay one.
Toro scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 8 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 | TTC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $6.3B | $10.2B |
| Share price | $138.27 | $107.28 |
| Change, 1 year | 12.2% | 48.6% |
| Change, 5 years | −26.3% | 2.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.08 | 0.97 |
| Employees | 2,393 | – |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 | 16 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 28.7× |
| P/S | 1.8× (better) | 2.1× |
| P/B | 2.8× (better) | 7.6× |
| EV/EBITDA | 12.2× (better) | 17.2× |
| P/FCF | 13.0× (better) | 14.3× |
| FCF yield | 7.7% (better) | 7.0% |
| Fair value | $149.50 | $93.39 |
| Margin of safety | 7.5% (better) | −14.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 8.4% (better) | 5.2% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 5.0% | 5.9% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −211% | 9.1% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −217% | 13.3% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 0.91% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 38.4% (better) | 33.4% |
| Operating margin | 16.5% (better) | 10.3% |
| Net margin | −13.9% | 7.6% (better) |
| FCF margin | 14.2% | 15.0% (better) |
| Return on equity | −16.2% | 26.4% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 8.5% | 17.6% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.90 | 0.72 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.74 | 1.24 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 8.7× |
| Current ratio | 1.99 (better) | 1.58 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.41 | 5.31 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 1.5% |
| Payout ratio | – | 41.3% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 16 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 8.7% |
| Buyback yield | 15.0% (better) | 3.5% |
| Shareholder yield | 15.0% (better) | 5.0% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 105% | 94.3% |
| Held by insiders | 9.3% | 0.39% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $15.1M (better) | −$14.2M |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.7% | 3.9% |
Go deeper
- MIDD stock overview
- MIDD income statement
- MIDD valuation and score
- TTC stock overview
- TTC income statement
- TTC valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.