Manufacturing - Metal Fabrication
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
ESAB vs RBC vs GTLS vs NNBR vs HLIO
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Manufacturing - Tools & Accessories
Industrial - Machinery
Conglomerates
Industrial - Machinery
ESAB vs RBC vs GTLS vs NNBR vs HLIO — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Manufacturing - Metal Fabrication | Manufacturing - Tools & Accessories | Industrial - Machinery | Conglomerates | Industrial - Machinery |
| Market Cap | $6.24B | $20.01B | $9.93B | $139M | $2.25B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $2.91B | $1.79B | $4.26B | $435M | $839M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $207M | $269M | $40M | $-35M | $49M |
| Gross Margin | 35.4% | 44.3% | 32.6% | 2.3% | 32.3% |
| Operating Margin | 16.2% | 23.8% | 8.5% | -3.3% | 7.8% |
| Forward P/E | 17.7x | 50.3x | 16.4x | 43.6x | 26.9x |
| Total Debt | $1.43B | $1.03B | $3.74B | $211M | $111M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $186M | $37M | $366M | $11M | $73M |
ESAB vs RBC vs GTLS vs NNBR vs HLIO — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Mar 22 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| ESAB Corporation (ESAB) | 100 | 204.8 | +104.8% |
| RBC Bearings Incorp… (RBC) | 100 | 315.6 | +215.6% |
| Chart Industries, I… (GTLS) | 100 | 120.7 | +20.7% |
| NN, Inc. (NNBR) | 100 | 95.8 | -4.2% |
| Helios Technologies… (HLIO) | 100 | 84.7 | -15.3% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: ESAB vs RBC vs GTLS vs NNBR vs HLIO
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
ESAB ranks third and is worth considering specifically for income & stability.
- Dividend streak 4 yrs, beta 1.24, yield 0.4%
- 0.4% yield, 4-year raise streak, vs HLIO's 0.5%, (1 stock pays no dividend)
RBC carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 4.9%, EPS growth 20.3%, 3Y rev CAGR 20.2%
- 8.7% 10Y total return vs GTLS's 7.7%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.05, Low D/E 33.9%, current ratio 3.26x
- 4.9% revenue growth vs NNBR's -9.1%
GTLS is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if value and stability is your priority.
- Lower P/E (16.4x vs 50.3x)
- Beta 0.56 vs NNBR's 2.04, lower leverage
Among these 5 stocks, NNBR doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
HLIO is the clearest fit if your priority is valuation efficiency and defensive.
- PEG 1.00 vs RBC's 5.74
- Beta 1.56, yield 0.5%, current ratio 2.90x
- +134.6% vs ESAB's -15.8%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 4.9% revenue growth vs NNBR's -9.1% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (16.4x vs 50.3x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 15.0% margin vs NNBR's -8.0% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.56 vs NNBR's 2.04, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 0.4% yield, 4-year raise streak, vs HLIO's 0.5%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +134.6% vs ESAB's -15.8% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 5.2% ROA vs NNBR's -7.7%, ROIC 6.9% vs -4.5% |
ESAB vs RBC vs GTLS vs NNBR vs HLIO — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
ESAB vs RBC vs GTLS vs NNBR vs HLIO — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
NNBR leads in 2 of 6 categories
RBC leads 1 • HLIO leads 1 • GTLS leads 1 • ESAB leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
RBC leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
GTLS is the larger business by revenue, generating $4.3B annually — 9.8x NNBR's $435M. RBC is the more profitable business, keeping 15.0% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to NNBR's -8.0%. On growth, HLIO holds the edge at +17.4% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $2.9B | $1.8B | $4.3B | $435M | $839M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $539M | $548M | $644M | $22M | $129M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $207M | $269M | $40M | -$35M | $49M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $218M | $330M | $203M | -$1M | $103M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +35.4% | +44.3% | +32.6% | +2.3% | +32.3% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +16.2% | +23.8% | +8.5% | -3.3% | +7.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +7.1% | +15.0% | +0.9% | -8.0% | +5.8% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +7.5% | +18.4% | +4.8% | -0.3% | +12.3% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +9.9% | +17.0% | -2.5% | +12.1% | +17.4% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -29.1% | +17.0% | -36.1% | -8.7% | +3.1% |
Valuation Metrics
NNBR leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 27.5x trailing earnings, ESAB trades at a 96% valuation discount to GTLS's 628.5x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), HLIO offers better value at 1.74x vs RBC's 9.07x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $6.2B | $20.0B | $9.9B | $139M | $2.3B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $7.5B | $21.0B | $13.3B | $338M | $2.3B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 27.53x | 79.45x | 628.45x | -2.58x | 46.89x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 17.74x | 50.32x | 16.40x | 43.60x | 26.92x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 3.79x | 9.07x | — | — | 1.74x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 13.00x | 42.86x | 14.33x | 19.03x | 17.74x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.19x | 12.23x | 2.33x | 0.33x | 2.68x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 2.82x | 6.13x | 2.79x | 0.93x | 2.43x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 29.24x | 82.06x | 48.95x | 19.16x | 21.72x |
Profitability & Efficiency
HLIO leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
ESAB delivers a 9.5% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $9 in annual profit, vs $-28 for NNBR. HLIO carries lower financial leverage with a 0.12x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to NNBR's 1.44x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), HLIO scores 9/9 vs NNBR's 3/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +9.5% | +8.2% | +1.2% | -28.4% | +5.3% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +4.2% | +5.2% | +0.4% | -7.7% | +3.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +11.9% | +6.9% | +7.4% | -4.5% | +4.4% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +13.1% | +8.5% | +8.6% | -5.0% | +4.8% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 9 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.65x | 0.34x | 1.11x | 1.44x | 0.12x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $1.2B | $992M | $3.4B | $200M | $38M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $186M | $37M | $366M | $11M | $73M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $1.4B | $1.0B | $3.7B | $211M | $111M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 3.40x | 7.78x | 1.08x | -0.74x | 3.84x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
NNBR leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in RBC five years ago would be worth $40,698 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $3,660 for NNBR. Over the past 12 months, HLIO leads with a +134.6% total return vs ESAB's -15.8%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors NNBR at 40.7% vs HLIO's 3.6% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -8.9% | +33.3% | +0.6% | +106.0% | +24.7% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -15.8% | +78.8% | +37.6% | +50.8% | +134.6% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +75.8% | +173.5% | +62.7% | +178.4% | +11.1% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +107.2% | +307.0% | +29.5% | -63.4% | -8.1% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +107.2% | +867.2% | +772.5% | -75.7% | +109.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +20.7% | +39.9% | +17.6% | +40.7% | +3.6% |
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 NNBR's 2.04 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 ESAB's 74.5% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.24x | 1.05x | 0.56x | 2.04x | 1.56x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $137.42 | $632.00 | $208.51 | $2.99 | $76.47 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $89.41 | $339.53 | $140.50 | $1.10 | $28.34 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +74.5% | +96.8% | +99.5% | +92.3% | +88.9% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 50.7 | 66.1 | 51.2 | 65.6 | 55.2 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 612K | 176K | 1.6M | 936K | 350K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — ESAB and HLIO each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: ESAB as "Buy", RBC as "Buy", GTLS as "Buy", NNBR as "Buy", HLIO as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 43.2% upside for ESAB (target: $147) vs -6.5% for GTLS (target: $194). For income investors, HLIO offers the higher dividend yield at 0.53% vs GTLS's 0.29%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $146.67 | $572.60 | $193.81 | — | $77.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 10 | 26 | 37 | 9 | 12 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +0.4% | +0.1% | +0.3% | — | +0.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.36 | $0.57 | $0.60 | — | $0.36 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | +0.6% |
NNBR leads in 2 of 6 categories (Valuation Metrics, Total Returns). RBC leads in 1 (Income & Cash Flow). 1 tied.
ESAB vs RBC vs GTLS vs NNBR vs HLIO: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is ESAB or RBC or GTLS or NNBR or HLIO a better buy right now?
For growth investors, RBC Bearings Incorporated (RBC) is the stronger pick with 4.
9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -9. 1% for NN, Inc. (NNBR). ESAB Corporation (ESAB) offers the better valuation at 27. 5x trailing P/E (17. 7x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate ESAB Corporation (ESAB) a "Buy" — based on 10 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 — ESAB or RBC or GTLS or NNBR or HLIO?
On trailing P/E, ESAB Corporation (ESAB) is the cheapest at 27.
5x 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: Helios Technologies, Inc. wins at 1. 00x versus RBC Bearings Incorporated's 5. 74x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — ESAB or RBC or GTLS or NNBR or HLIO?
Over the past 5 years, RBC Bearings Incorporated (RBC) delivered a total return of +307.
0%, compared to -63. 4% for NN, Inc. (NNBR). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: RBC returned +867. 2% versus NNBR's -75. 7%. 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 — ESAB or RBC or GTLS or NNBR or HLIO?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Chart Industries, Inc.
(GTLS) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 56β versus NN, Inc. 's 2. 04β — meaning NNBR is approximately 266% more volatile than GTLS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Helios Technologies, Inc. (HLIO) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 12% versus 144% for NN, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — ESAB or RBC or GTLS or NNBR or HLIO?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), RBC Bearings Incorporated (RBC) is pulling ahead at 4.
9% versus -9. 1% for NN, Inc. (NNBR). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Helios Technologies, Inc. grew EPS 23. 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 — ESAB or RBC or GTLS or NNBR or HLIO?
RBC Bearings Incorporated (RBC) is the more profitable company, earning 15.
0% net margin versus -8. 1% for NN, Inc. — meaning it keeps 15. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: RBC leads at 22. 6% versus -4. 3% for NNBR. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — RBC leads at 44. 4%, 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 ESAB or RBC or GTLS or NNBR or HLIO 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, Helios Technologies, Inc. (HLIO) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 00x versus RBC Bearings Incorporated's 5. 74x. 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 50. 3x for RBC Bearings Incorporated — 33. 9x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for ESAB: 43. 2% to $146. 67.
08Which pays a better dividend — ESAB or RBC or GTLS or NNBR or HLIO?
In this comparison, HLIO (0.
5% yield), ESAB (0. 4% yield), GTLS (0. 3% yield) pay a dividend. RBC, NNBR do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is ESAB or RBC or GTLS or NNBR or HLIO 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). NN, Inc. (NNBR) carries a higher beta of 2. 04 — 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%, NNBR: -75. 7%), 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 ESAB and RBC and GTLS and NNBR and HLIO?
Both stocks operate in the Industrials sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
HLIO pays a dividend while ESAB, RBC, GTLS, NNBR 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.