MSC Industrial Direct vs SiteOne Landscape Supply
MSM and SITE side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How MSM and SITE compare
MSC Industrial Direct is the larger company, worth 1.4 times as much as SiteOne Landscape Supply ($6.6B against $4.9B).
On earnings, SiteOne Landscape Supply is cheaper: it trades at 29.6× trailing earnings, against 29.8× for MSC Industrial Direct.
MSC Industrial Direct grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.4% versus 2.9% for SiteOne Landscape Supply).
MSC Industrial Direct keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 5.6% compared with 3.5% at SiteOne Landscape Supply.
MSC Industrial Direct pays a dividend yielding 2.2%; SiteOne Landscape Supply does not pay one.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | MSM | SITE |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $6.6B | $4.9B |
| Share price | $118.47 | $112.57 |
| Change, 1 year | 32.5% | −10.9% |
| Change, 5 years | 41.3% | −54.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.79 | 1.39 |
| Employees | 7,028 | 8,200 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 | 13 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividend score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 29.8× | 29.6× (better) |
| P/S | 1.7× | 1.0× (better) |
| P/B | 4.6× | 2.9× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 16.7× (better) | 20.0× |
| P/FCF | 29.4× | 19.5× (better) |
| FCF yield | 3.4% | 5.1% (better) |
| Fair value | $76.90 | $101.32 |
| Margin of safety | −54.1% | −11.1% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.4% (better) | 2.9% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.3% | 11.7% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 11.7% | 20.5% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 11.5% | 23.4% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 0.56% | 4.2% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 40.9% (better) | 35.3% |
| Operating margin | 8.0% (better) | 5.5% |
| Net margin | 5.6% (better) | 3.5% |
| FCF margin | 5.6% (better) | 5.2% |
| Return on equity | 15.8% (better) | 9.9% |
| Return on invested capital | 13.2% (better) | 9.8% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.33 | 0.28 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.98 (better) | 1.47 |
| Interest coverage | 14.8× (better) | 7.4× |
| Current ratio | 1.78 | 2.41 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 6.21 (better) | 4.27 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 | 8 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.2% | – |
| Buyback yield | 0.21% | 4.4% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 2.4% | 4.4% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 83.4% | 110% |
| Held by insiders | 10.8% | 1.8% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $28.9M (better) | $2.1M |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.9% | 8.4% |
Go deeper
- MSM stock overview
- MSM income statement
- MSM valuation and score
- SITE stock overview
- SITE income statement
- SITE valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.