MSC Industrial Direct vs Pool
MSM and POOL side by side, both in wholesale trade-durable goods. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How MSM and POOL compare
MSC Industrial Direct and Pool are about the same size, with market caps of $6.8B and $7.7B.
On earnings, Pool is cheaper: it trades at 19.9× trailing earnings, against 30.4× for MSC Industrial Direct.
MSC Industrial Direct grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.4% versus 2.9% for Pool).
Pool keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 7.3% compared with 5.6% at MSC Industrial Direct.
Both pay dividends: MSC Industrial Direct yields 2.9% and Pool 3.0%.
Pool scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 13 for MSC Industrial Direct), 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 | MSM | POOL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $6.8B | $7.7B |
| Share price | $120.87 | $215.78 |
| Change, 1 year | 36.8% | −13.3% |
| Change, 5 years | 44.1% | −62.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.79 | 0.96 |
| Employees | 7,028 | 6,000 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 | 17 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 30.4× | 19.9× (better) |
| P/S | 1.7× | 1.4× (better) |
| P/B | 4.7× (better) | 6.3× |
| EV/EBITDA | 17.0× | 15.3× (better) |
| P/FCF | 30.0× | 17.4× (better) |
| FCF yield | 3.3% | 5.7% (better) |
| Fair value | $77.53 | $222.67 |
| Margin of safety | −55.9% | 3.1% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.4% (better) | 2.9% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.3% | 6.1% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 11.7% (better) | −3.9% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 11.5% (better) | −0.91% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 0.56% | 3.9% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 40.9% (better) | 29.4% |
| Operating margin | 8.0% | 10.5% (better) |
| Net margin | 5.6% | 7.3% (better) |
| FCF margin | 5.6% | 8.1% (better) |
| Return on equity | 15.8% | 30.4% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 13.2% | 18.8% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.33 (better) | 0.95 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.98 (better) | 1.85 |
| Interest coverage | 14.8× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.78 | 2.46 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 6.29 (better) | 4.75 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.9% | 3.0% (better) |
| Payout ratio | – | 47.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 15 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 16.7% |
| Buyback yield | 0.21% | 4.9% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 3.1% | 7.9% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 83.4% | 112% |
| Held by insiders | 10.8% | 3.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $28.9M (better) | $5.7M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.9% | 10.3% |
Go deeper
- MSM stock overview
- MSM income statement
- MSM valuation and score
- POOL stock overview
- POOL income statement
- POOL valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.