Parker-Hannifin vs Stanley Black & Decker
PH and SWK side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How PH and SWK compare
Parker-Hannifin is the larger company, worth 7.0 times as much as Stanley Black & Decker ($120B against $17.1B).
On earnings, Stanley Black & Decker is cheaper: it trades at 20.3× trailing earnings, against 32.8× for Parker-Hannifin.
Parker-Hannifin grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (11.9% versus 0.38% for Stanley Black & Decker).
Both pay dividends: Parker-Hannifin yields 0.61% and Stanley Black & Decker 2.9%.
Stanley Black & Decker scores higher on the StockData Score (15 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 | PH | SWK |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $120B | $17.1B |
| Share price | $955.68 | $113.27 |
| Change, 1 year | 11.9% | 66.0% |
| Change, 5 years | 190% | −40.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.13 | 1.17 |
| Employees | 60K | 44K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 11 | 15 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Performance score | 1 | 1 |
| Health score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 32.8× | 20.3× (better) |
| P/S | 5.4× | 1.1× (better) |
| P/B | 7.5× | 1.9× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 25.4× | 10.7× (better) |
| P/FCF | 31.2× | 10.0× (better) |
| PEG | 1.56 | – |
| FCF yield | 3.2% | 10.0% (better) |
| Fair value | $590.38 | $122.03 |
| Margin of safety | −61.9% | 7.2% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 11.9% (better) | 0.38% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 8.4% (better) | 3.5% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 91.8% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 3.7% | 92.8% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 16.4% (better) | −18.7% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 37.7% (better) | 33.8% |
| Operating margin | 23.6% | – |
| Net margin | – | 5.5% |
| FCF margin | 17.2% (better) | 11.3% |
| Return on equity | – | 9.4% |
| Return on invested capital | 15.0% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.92 | 0.53 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.63 | 2.02 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 11.9× | – |
| Current ratio | 0.94 | 1.42 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 4.57 (better) | 2.39 |
| Piotroski F-score | – | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.61% | 2.9% (better) |
| Payout ratio | – | 59.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | 9 | 17 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 15.1% (better) | 3.5% |
| Buyback yield | 0.71% | 2.9% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 1.3% | 5.9% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 92.2% | 98.6% |
| Held by insiders | 0.20% | 0.30% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$45.2M | −$105K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.2% | 5.0% |
Go deeper
- PH stock overview
- PH income statement
- PH valuation and score
- SWK stock overview
- SWK income statement
- SWK valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.