Manufacturing - Tools & Accessories
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
HLMN vs SITE vs FERG vs POOL vs SWK
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Industrial - Distribution
Industrial - Distribution
Industrial - Distribution
Manufacturing - Tools & Accessories
HLMN vs SITE vs FERG vs POOL vs SWK — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Manufacturing - Tools & Accessories | Industrial - Distribution | Industrial - Distribution | Industrial - Distribution | Manufacturing - Tools & Accessories |
| Market Cap | $1.55B | $5.54B | $48.02B | $6.99B | $12.47B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $1.56B | $4.71B | $31.63B | $5.36B | $15.23B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $36M | $153M | $2.07B | $406M | $371M |
| Gross Margin | 46.1% | 34.9% | 30.7% | 29.7% | 30.0% |
| Operating Margin | 6.9% | 5.1% | 9.2% | 10.9% | 7.8% |
| Forward P/E | 13.5x | 28.7x | 22.1x | 17.2x | 17.6x |
| Total Debt | $828M | $980M | $5.97B | $349M | $5.86B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $27M | $191M | $674M | $105M | $280M |
HLMN vs SITE vs FERG vs POOL vs SWK — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Dec 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hillman Solutions C… (HLMN) | 100 | 75.2 | -24.8% |
| SiteOne Landscape S… (SITE) | 100 | 78.8 | -21.2% |
| Ferguson plc (FERG) | 100 | 208.0 | +108.0% |
| Pool Corporation (POOL) | 100 | 51.1 | -48.9% |
| Stanley Black & Dec… (SWK) | 100 | 44.9 | -55.1% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: HLMN vs SITE vs FERG vs POOL vs SWK
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
HLMN has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in growth exposure.
- Rev growth 5.4%, EPS growth 122.2%, 3Y rev CAGR 1.5%
- 5.4% revenue growth vs SWK's -1.5%
- Lower P/E (13.5x vs 17.2x)
Among these 5 stocks, SITE doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
FERG is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if long-term compounding and valuation efficiency is your priority.
- 373.2% 10Y total return vs SITE's 368.6%
- PEG 1.30 vs SITE's 6.91
- +48.6% vs POOL's -33.9%
- 11.8% ROA vs HLMN's 1.5%, ROIC 18.0% vs 4.5%
POOL ranks third and is worth considering specifically for income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 15 yrs, beta 1.00, yield 2.6%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.00, Low D/E 29.4%, current ratio 2.24x
- Beta 1.00, yield 2.6%, current ratio 2.24x
- 7.6% margin vs HLMN's 2.3%
SWK is the clearest fit if your priority is dividends.
- 4.1% yield, 16-year raise streak, vs POOL's 2.6%, (2 stocks pay no dividend)
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 5.4% revenue growth vs SWK's -1.5% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (13.5x vs 17.2x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 7.6% margin vs HLMN's 2.3% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.00 vs SWK's 1.83, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 4.1% yield, 16-year raise streak, vs POOL's 2.6%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +48.6% vs POOL's -33.9% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 11.8% ROA vs HLMN's 1.5%, ROIC 18.0% vs 4.5% |
HLMN vs SITE vs FERG vs POOL vs SWK — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
HLMN vs SITE vs FERG vs POOL vs SWK — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
POOL leads in 1 of 6 categories
HLMN leads 1 • FERG leads 1 • SWK leads 1 • SITE leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
POOL leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
FERG is the larger business by revenue, generating $31.6B annually — 20.2x HLMN's $1.6B. POOL is the more profitable business, keeping 7.6% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to HLMN's 2.3%. On growth, POOL holds the edge at +6.2% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $1.6B | $4.7B | $31.6B | $5.4B | $15.2B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $251M | $382M | $3.3B | $636M | $1.7B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $36M | $153M | $2.1B | $406M | $371M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $91M | $246M | $1.0B | $605M | $726M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +46.1% | +34.9% | +30.7% | +29.7% | +30.0% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +6.9% | +5.1% | +9.2% | +10.9% | +7.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +2.3% | +3.2% | +6.6% | +7.6% | +2.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +5.9% | +5.2% | +3.2% | +11.3% | +4.8% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +3.0% | +0.1% | -2.0% | +6.2% | +2.7% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +1.6% | +2.9% | +2.1% | -35.0% |
Valuation Metrics
HLMN leads this category, winning 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 17.6x trailing earnings, POOL trades at a 55% valuation discount to HLMN's 39.4x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), FERG offers better value at 1.55x vs SITE's 8.94x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1.5B | $5.5B | $48.0B | $7.0B | $12.5B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $2.3B | $6.3B | $53.3B | $7.2B | $18.0B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 39.40x | 37.08x | 26.45x | 17.55x | 30.26x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 13.52x | 28.67x | 22.12x | 17.21x | 17.64x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 8.94x | 1.55x | 4.53x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 9.07x | 16.70x | 17.90x | 11.45x | 11.71x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.00x | 1.18x | 1.56x | 1.32x | 0.82x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.28x | 3.35x | 8.42x | 5.99x | 1.35x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 44.07x | 22.44x | 29.96x | 22.58x | 18.12x |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — FERG and POOL each lead in 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
FERG delivers a 35.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $35 in annual profit, vs $3 for HLMN. POOL carries lower financial leverage with a 0.29x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to FERG's 1.02x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), SITE scores 8/9 vs SWK's 6/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +2.9% | +9.1% | +35.1% | +32.2% | +4.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +1.5% | +4.6% | +11.8% | +11.3% | +1.7% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +4.5% | +7.3% | +18.0% | +22.3% | +5.8% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +5.6% | +9.6% | +22.6% | +22.0% | +7.0% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.67x | 0.58x | 1.02x | 0.29x | 0.65x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $801M | $789M | $5.3B | $244M | $5.6B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $27M | $191M | $674M | $105M | $280M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $828M | $980M | $6.0B | $349M | $5.9B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 1.96x | 6.79x | 15.59x | 12.20x | 2.07x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
FERG leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in FERG five years ago would be worth $19,774 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $4,381 for SWK. Over the past 12 months, FERG leads with a +48.6% total return vs POOL's -33.9%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors FERG at 22.1% vs POOL's -16.6% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -9.5% | -0.1% | +10.4% | -16.6% | +5.9% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +7.8% | +5.6% | +48.6% | -33.9% | +41.7% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -3.1% | -18.7% | +82.0% | -42.1% | +6.9% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -30.4% | -38.4% | +97.7% | -52.3% | -56.2% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -19.7% | +368.6% | +373.2% | +145.0% | -1.5% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -1.0% | -6.7% | +22.1% | -16.6% | +2.2% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — FERG and POOL each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
POOL is the less volatile stock with a 1.00 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. FERG currently trades 90.8% from its 52-week high vs POOL's 55.2% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.37x | 1.24x | 1.24x | 1.00x | 1.83x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $10.85 | $168.56 | $271.64 | $345.00 | $93.37 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $6.55 | $112.23 | $166.04 | $186.95 | $58.23 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +72.6% | +74.1% | +90.8% | +55.2% | +85.9% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 41.8 | 36.8 | 48.1 | 29.7 | 61.0 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.5M | 689K | 1.3M | 764K | 2.0M |
Analyst Outlook
SWK leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: HLMN as "Buy", SITE as "Buy", FERG as "Buy", POOL as "Buy", SWK as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 77.7% upside for HLMN (target: $14) vs 9.9% for FERG (target: $271). For income investors, SWK offers the higher dividend yield at 4.10% vs FERG's 1.00%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $14.00 | $162.29 | $271.00 | $279.29 | $89.17 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 7 | 15 | 14 | 21 | 37 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | +1.0% | +2.6% | +4.1% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 2 | 0 | 15 | 16 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | $2.45 | $4.96 | $3.29 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.8% | +1.8% | +2.0% | +5.0% | +0.1% |
POOL leads in 1 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow). HLMN leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
HLMN vs SITE vs FERG vs POOL vs SWK: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is HLMN or SITE or FERG or POOL or SWK a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Hillman Solutions Corp.
(HLMN) is the stronger pick with 5. 4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -1. 5% for Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. (SWK). Pool Corporation (POOL) offers the better valuation at 17. 6x trailing P/E (17. 2x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Hillman Solutions Corp. (HLMN) a "Buy" — based on 7 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 — HLMN or SITE or FERG or POOL or SWK?
On trailing P/E, Pool Corporation (POOL) is the cheapest at 17.
6x versus Hillman Solutions Corp. at 39. 4x. On forward P/E, Hillman Solutions Corp. is actually cheaper at 13. 5x — 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: Ferguson plc wins at 1. 30x versus SiteOne Landscape Supply, Inc. 's 6. 91x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.
03Which is the better long-term investment — HLMN or SITE or FERG or POOL or SWK?
Over the past 5 years, Ferguson plc (FERG) delivered a total return of +97.
7%, compared to -56. 2% for Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. (SWK). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: FERG returned +373. 2% versus HLMN's -19. 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 — HLMN or SITE or FERG or POOL or SWK?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Pool Corporation (POOL) is the lower-risk stock at 1.
00β versus Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. 's 1. 83β — meaning SWK is approximately 82% more volatile than POOL relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Pool Corporation (POOL) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 29% versus 102% for Ferguson plc — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — HLMN or SITE or FERG or POOL or SWK?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Hillman Solutions Corp.
(HLMN) is pulling ahead at 5. 4% versus -1. 5% for Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. (SWK). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Hillman Solutions Corp. grew EPS 122. 2% year-over-year, compared to -4. 0% for Pool Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, SITE leads at 5. 4% 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 — HLMN or SITE or FERG or POOL or SWK?
Pool Corporation (POOL) is the more profitable company, earning 7.
7% net margin versus 2. 6% for Hillman Solutions Corp. — meaning it keeps 7. 7% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: POOL leads at 11. 0% versus 5. 1% for SITE. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — HLMN leads at 39. 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 HLMN or SITE or FERG or POOL or SWK 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, Ferguson plc (FERG) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 30x versus SiteOne Landscape Supply, Inc. 's 6. 91x. A PEG below 1. 5 suggests fair-to-attractive pricing relative to expected growth. On forward earnings alone, Hillman Solutions Corp. (HLMN) trades at 13. 5x forward P/E versus 28. 7x for SiteOne Landscape Supply, Inc. — 15. 2x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for HLMN: 77. 7% to $14. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — HLMN or SITE or FERG or POOL or SWK?
In this comparison, SWK (4.
1% yield), POOL (2. 6% yield), FERG (1. 0% yield) pay a dividend. HLMN, SITE do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is HLMN or SITE or FERG or POOL or SWK better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Pool Corporation (POOL) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1.
00), 2. 6% yield, +145. 0% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (POOL: +145. 0%, HLMN: -19. 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 HLMN and SITE and FERG and POOL and SWK?
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: HLMN is a small-cap quality compounder stock; SITE is a small-cap quality compounder stock; FERG is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; POOL is a small-cap deep-value stock; SWK is a mid-cap income-oriented stock. FERG, POOL, SWK pay a dividend while HLMN, SITE 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.