Mesa Laboratories vs Transcat
MLAB and TRNS side by side, both in laboratory apparatus and analytical, optical, measuring, and controlling instruments. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How MLAB and TRNS compare
Transcat is the larger company, worth 1.3 times as much as Mesa Laboratories ($974M against $778M).
On earnings, Mesa Laboratories is cheaper: it trades at 121× trailing earnings, against 281× for Transcat.
Transcat grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (20.9% versus 2.5% for Mesa Laboratories).
Mesa Laboratories keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 2.7% compared with 0.99% at Transcat.
Mesa Laboratories pays a dividend yielding 0.46%; Transcat does not pay one.
Mesa Laboratories scores higher on the StockData Score (11 against 9 for Transcat), 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 | MLAB | TRNS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $778M | $974M |
| Share price | $139.01 | $104.08 |
| Change, 1 year | 74.0% | 87.1% |
| Change, 5 years | −55.5% | 8.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.00 | 0.95 |
| Employees | 717 | 1,413 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 11 (better) | 9 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 121× (better) | 281× |
| P/S | 3.1× | 2.8× (better) |
| P/B | 4.0× | 3.2× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 28.9× | 27.5× (better) |
| P/FCF | 15.7× (better) | 38.4× |
| PEG | 1.31 | – |
| FCF yield | 6.4% (better) | 2.6% |
| Fair value | $80.01 | $79.59 |
| Margin of safety | −73.7% | −30.8% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 2.5% | 20.9% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 13.2% | 13.9% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | −74.2% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | −74.1% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 13.6% (better) | −11.2% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 64.8% (better) | 32.5% |
| Operating margin | 10.4% (better) | 3.3% |
| Net margin | 2.7% (better) | 0.99% |
| FCF margin | 19.7% (better) | 7.3% |
| Return on equity | 3.6% (better) | 1.2% |
| Return on invested capital | 7.9% (better) | 2.0% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.36 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 2.65 |
| Interest coverage | 2.6× (better) | 2.1× |
| Current ratio | 1.90 | 2.49 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.54 | 4.29 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.46% | – |
| Payout ratio | 53.3% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 0.00% | – |
| Buyback yield | – | 0.24% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.46% (better) | 0.24% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 89.9% | 103% |
| Held by insiders | 3.6% | 2.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$216K (better) | −$344K |
| Short interest, % of float | 7.0% | 4.2% |
Go deeper
- MLAB stock overview
- MLAB income statement
- MLAB valuation and score
- TRNS stock overview
- TRNS income statement
- TRNS valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.