Industrial - Machinery
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
EPAC vs KMT vs GTLS vs SWK vs ITT
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Manufacturing - Tools & Accessories
Industrial - Machinery
Manufacturing - Tools & Accessories
Industrial - Machinery
EPAC vs KMT vs GTLS vs SWK vs ITT — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Industrial - Machinery | Manufacturing - Tools & Accessories | Industrial - Machinery | Manufacturing - Tools & Accessories | Industrial - Machinery |
| Market Cap | $1.88B | $3.18B | $9.93B | $12.47B | $18.56B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $616M | $2.14B | $4.26B | $15.23B | $4.24B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $90M | $137M | $40M | $371M | $458M |
| Gross Margin | 49.8% | 31.9% | 32.6% | 30.0% | 35.5% |
| Operating Margin | 21.2% | 9.5% | 8.5% | 7.8% | 15.9% |
| Forward P/E | 18.8x | 17.1x | 16.4x | 17.6x | 27.1x |
| Total Debt | $228M | $643M | $3.74B | $5.86B | $927M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $152M | $141M | $366M | $280M | $1.74B |
EPAC vs KMT vs GTLS vs SWK vs ITT — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enerpac Tool Group … (EPAC) | 100 | 198.5 | +98.5% |
| Kennametal Inc. (KMT) | 100 | 150.3 | +50.3% |
| Chart Industries, I… (GTLS) | 100 | 528.4 | +428.4% |
| Stanley Black & Dec… (SWK) | 100 | 63.9 | -36.1% |
| ITT Inc. (ITT) | 100 | 359.9 | +259.9% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: EPAC vs KMT vs GTLS vs SWK vs ITT
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
EPAC carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for sleep-well-at-night and valuation efficiency.
- Lower volatility, beta 1.10, Low D/E 52.5%, current ratio 2.74x
- PEG 0.11 vs ITT's 0.55
- Beta 1.10, yield 0.1%, current ratio 2.74x
- Lower P/E (18.8x vs 27.1x), PEG 0.11 vs 0.55
KMT is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if momentum is your priority.
- +115.0% vs EPAC's -14.7%
GTLS ranks third and is worth considering specifically for long-term compounding.
- 7.7% 10Y total return vs ITT's 5.3%
- Beta 0.56 vs SWK's 1.83
SWK is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability.
- Dividend streak 16 yrs, beta 1.83, yield 4.1%
- 4.1% yield, 16-year raise streak, vs ITT's 0.7%
ITT is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth 8.5%, EPS growth -3.0%, 3Y rev CAGR 9.6%
- 8.5% revenue growth vs KMT's -3.9%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 8.5% revenue growth vs KMT's -3.9% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (18.8x vs 27.1x), PEG 0.11 vs 0.55 | |
| Quality / Margins | 14.6% margin vs GTLS's 0.9% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.56 vs SWK's 1.83 | |
| Dividends | 4.1% yield, 16-year raise streak, vs ITT's 0.7% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +115.0% vs EPAC's -14.7% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 11.0% ROA vs GTLS's 0.4%, ROIC 21.7% vs 7.4% |
EPAC vs KMT vs GTLS vs SWK vs ITT — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
EPAC vs KMT vs GTLS vs SWK vs ITT — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
EPAC leads in 2 of 6 categories
SWK leads 2 • ITT leads 1 • GTLS leads 1 • KMT leads 0
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
EPAC leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
SWK is the larger business by revenue, generating $15.2B annually — 24.7x EPAC's $616M. EPAC is the more profitable business, keeping 14.6% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to GTLS's 0.9%. On growth, ITT holds the edge at +32.7% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $616M | $2.1B | $4.3B | $15.2B | $4.2B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $147M | $238M | $644M | $1.7B | $781M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $90M | $137M | $40M | $371M | $458M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $102M | $73M | $203M | $726M | $485M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +49.8% | +31.9% | +32.6% | +30.0% | +35.5% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +21.2% | +9.5% | +8.5% | +7.8% | +15.9% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +14.6% | +6.4% | +0.9% | +2.4% | +10.8% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +16.6% | +3.4% | +4.8% | +4.8% | +11.4% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -0.7% | +21.8% | -2.5% | +2.7% | +32.7% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -10.0% | +82.9% | -36.1% | -35.0% | -33.1% |
Valuation Metrics
SWK leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 20.9x trailing earnings, EPAC trades at a 97% valuation discount to GTLS's 628.5x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), EPAC offers better value at 0.12x vs ITT's 0.69x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1.9B | $3.2B | $9.9B | $12.5B | $18.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $2.0B | $3.7B | $13.3B | $18.0B | $17.7B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 20.91x | 34.74x | 628.45x | 30.26x | 33.98x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 18.75x | 17.09x | 16.40x | 17.64x | 27.11x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 0.12x | — | — | — | 0.69x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 12.59x | 13.16x | 14.33x | 11.71x | 21.44x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 3.04x | 1.62x | 2.33x | 0.82x | 4.71x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 4.46x | 2.45x | 2.79x | 1.35x | 4.06x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 20.40x | 26.62x | 48.95x | 18.12x | 33.91x |
Profitability & Efficiency
EPAC leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
EPAC delivers a 20.9% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $21 in annual profit, vs $1 for GTLS. ITT carries lower financial leverage with a 0.23x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to GTLS's 1.11x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), ITT scores 7/9 vs GTLS's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +20.9% | +10.1% | +1.2% | +4.1% | +13.0% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +11.0% | +5.3% | +0.4% | +1.7% | +6.7% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +21.7% | +5.9% | +7.4% | +5.8% | +16.1% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +20.8% | +6.8% | +8.6% | +7.0% | +16.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.53x | 0.49x | 1.11x | 0.65x | 0.23x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $76M | $503M | $3.4B | $5.6B | -$816M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $152M | $141M | $366M | $280M | $1.7B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $228M | $643M | $3.7B | $5.9B | $927M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 13.59x | 5.29x | 1.08x | 2.07x | 8.60x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
ITT leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in ITT five years ago would be worth $21,583 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $4,381 for SWK. Over the past 12 months, KMT leads with a +115.0% total return vs EPAC's -14.7%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors ITT at 36.2% vs SWK's 2.2% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -10.2% | +44.5% | +0.6% | +5.9% | +19.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -14.7% | +115.0% | +37.6% | +41.7% | +47.8% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +50.7% | +63.7% | +62.7% | +6.9% | +152.5% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +26.0% | +9.3% | +29.5% | -56.2% | +115.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +40.3% | +120.9% | +772.5% | -1.5% | +531.3% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +14.7% | +17.9% | +17.6% | +2.2% | +36.2% |
Risk & Volatility
GTLS leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
GTLS is the less volatile stock with a 0.56 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than SWK's 1.83 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. GTLS currently trades 99.5% from its 52-week high vs EPAC's 76.6% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.10x | 1.31x | 0.56x | 1.83x | 1.23x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $46.39 | $43.81 | $208.51 | $93.37 | $225.26 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $33.66 | $17.62 | $140.50 | $58.23 | $140.43 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +76.6% | +95.2% | +99.5% | +85.9% | +92.2% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 50.3 | 68.4 | 51.2 | 61.0 | 58.7 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 375K | 1.3M | 1.6M | 2.0M | 879K |
Analyst Outlook
SWK leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: EPAC as "Hold", KMT as "Hold", GTLS as "Buy", SWK as "Hold", ITT as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 11.2% upside for SWK (target: $89) vs -13.6% for KMT (target: $36). For income investors, SWK offers the higher dividend yield at 4.10% vs EPAC's 0.11%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Hold | Buy | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $37.00 | $36.00 | $193.81 | $89.17 | $229.67 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 19 | 23 | 37 | 37 | 22 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +0.1% | +1.9% | +0.3% | +4.1% | +0.7% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 1 | 2 | 1 | 16 | 13 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.04 | $0.79 | $0.60 | $3.29 | $1.39 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +3.7% | +1.9% | 0.0% | +0.1% | +2.8% |
EPAC leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). SWK leads in 2 (Valuation Metrics, Analyst Outlook).
EPAC vs KMT vs GTLS vs SWK vs ITT: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is EPAC or KMT or GTLS or SWK or ITT a better buy right now?
For growth investors, ITT Inc.
(ITT) is the stronger pick with 8. 5% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -3. 9% for Kennametal Inc. (KMT). Enerpac Tool Group Corp. (EPAC) offers the better valuation at 20. 9x trailing P/E (18. 8x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Chart Industries, Inc. (GTLS) a "Buy" — based on 37 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.
02Which has the better valuation — EPAC or KMT or GTLS or SWK or ITT?
On trailing P/E, Enerpac Tool Group Corp.
(EPAC) is the cheapest at 20. 9x versus Chart Industries, Inc. at 628. 5x. On forward P/E, Chart Industries, Inc. is actually cheaper at 16. 4x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Enerpac Tool Group Corp. wins at 0. 11x versus ITT Inc. 's 0. 55x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — EPAC or KMT or GTLS or SWK or ITT?
Over the past 5 years, ITT Inc.
(ITT) delivered a total return of +115. 8%, compared to -56. 2% for Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. (SWK). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: GTLS returned +772. 5% versus SWK's -1. 5%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — EPAC or KMT or GTLS or SWK or ITT?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Chart Industries, Inc.
(GTLS) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 56β versus Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. 's 1. 83β — meaning SWK is approximately 228% more volatile than GTLS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, ITT Inc. (ITT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 23% versus 111% for Chart Industries, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — EPAC or KMT or GTLS or SWK or ITT?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), ITT Inc.
(ITT) is pulling ahead at 8. 5% versus -3. 9% for Kennametal Inc. (KMT). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. grew EPS 35. 9% year-over-year, compared to -92. 0% for Chart Industries, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, GTLS leads at 38. 3% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.
06Which has better profit margins — EPAC or KMT or GTLS or SWK or ITT?
Enerpac Tool Group Corp.
(EPAC) is the more profitable company, earning 15. 0% net margin versus 1. 0% for Chart Industries, Inc. — meaning it keeps 15. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: EPAC leads at 22. 6% versus 7. 3% for KMT. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — EPAC leads at 49. 6%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.
07Is EPAC or KMT or GTLS or SWK or ITT more undervalued right now?
The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.
By this metric, Enerpac Tool Group Corp. (EPAC) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 11x versus ITT Inc. 's 0. 55x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Chart Industries, Inc. (GTLS) trades at 16. 4x forward P/E versus 27. 1x for ITT Inc. — 10. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for SWK: 11. 2% to $89. 17.
08Which pays a better dividend — EPAC or KMT or GTLS or SWK or ITT?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. (SWK) offers the highest yield at 4. 1%, versus 0. 1% for Enerpac Tool Group Corp. (EPAC).
09Is EPAC or KMT or GTLS or SWK or ITT better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Chart Industries, Inc.
(GTLS) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 56), +772. 5% 10Y return). Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. (SWK) carries a higher beta of 1. 83 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (GTLS: +772. 5%, SWK: -1. 5%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.
10What are the main differences between EPAC and KMT and GTLS and SWK and ITT?
Both stocks operate in the Industrials sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
In terms of investment character: EPAC is a small-cap quality compounder stock; KMT is a small-cap quality compounder stock; GTLS is a small-cap quality compounder stock; SWK is a mid-cap income-oriented stock; ITT is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. KMT, SWK, ITT pay a dividend while EPAC, GTLS do not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.