Mueller Water Products vs Parker-Hannifin
MWA and PH side by side, both in fabricated metal products, except machinery and transportation equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How MWA and PH compare
Parker-Hannifin is the larger company, worth 32 times as much as Mueller Water Products ($120B against $3.8B).
On earnings, Mueller Water Products is cheaper: it trades at 17.2× trailing earnings, against 32.8× for Parker-Hannifin.
Parker-Hannifin grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (11.9% versus 5.9% for Mueller Water Products).
Both pay dividends: Mueller Water Products yields 0.87% and Parker-Hannifin 0.61%.
Mueller Water Products scores higher on the StockData Score (20 against 11 for Parker-Hannifin), 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 | MWA | PH |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.8B | $120B |
| Share price | $24.20 | $955.68 |
| Change, 1 year | 2.7% | 11.9% |
| Change, 5 years | 65.6% | 190% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.97 | 1.13 |
| Employees | 3,500 | 60K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 20 (better) | 11 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 4 | 4 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 17.2× (better) | 32.8× |
| P/S | 2.6× (better) | 5.4× |
| P/B | – | 7.5× |
| EV/EBITDA | 11.1× (better) | 25.4× |
| P/FCF | 21.0× (better) | 31.2× |
| PEG | 0.47 (better) | 1.56 |
| FCF yield | 4.8% (better) | 3.2% |
| Fair value | $31.48 | $590.38 |
| Margin of safety | 23.1% (better) | −61.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.9% | 11.9% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 8.2% | 8.4% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 49.0% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 50.0% (better) | 3.7% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 16.4% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 37.9% (better) | 37.7% |
| Operating margin | 19.4% | 23.6% (better) |
| Net margin | 15.0% | – |
| FCF margin | 12.1% | 17.2% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | – | 15.0% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.92 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.13 | 2.63 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 16.2× (better) | 11.9× |
| Current ratio | 4.64 (better) | 0.94 |
| Altman Z-score | 4.51 | 4.57 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 | – |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.87% (better) | 0.61% |
| Payout ratio | 19.5% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 11 (better) | 9 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 5.0% | 15.1% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 0.35% | 0.71% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 1.2% | 1.3% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 96.2% | 92.2% |
| Held by insiders | 0.52% | 0.20% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$4.0M (better) | −$45.2M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.4% | 1.2% |
Go deeper
- MWA stock overview
- MWA income statement
- MWA valuation and score
- PH stock overview
- PH income statement
- PH valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.