Industrial - Distribution
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
MSM vs GWW vs FAST vs SITE vs POOL
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Industrial - Distribution
Industrial - Distribution
Industrial - Distribution
Industrial - Distribution
MSM vs GWW vs FAST vs SITE vs POOL — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Industrial - Distribution | Industrial - Distribution | Industrial - Distribution | Industrial - Distribution | Industrial - Distribution |
| Market Cap | $5.82B | $58.41B | $50.93B | $5.54B | $6.99B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $3.81B | $18.38B | $8.20B | $4.71B | $5.36B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $205M | $1.78B | $1.26B | $153M | $406M |
| Gross Margin | 40.7% | 39.2% | 45.0% | 34.9% | 29.7% |
| Operating Margin | 8.4% | 14.2% | 20.2% | 5.1% | 10.9% |
| Forward P/E | 24.0x | 28.3x | 35.9x | 28.7x | 17.2x |
| Total Debt | $539M | $3.16B | $442M | $980M | $349M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $56M | $585M | $277M | $191M | $105M |
MSM vs GWW vs FAST vs SITE vs POOL — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| MSC Industrial Dire… (MSM) | 100 | 150.4 | +50.4% |
| W.W. Grainger, Inc. (GWW) | 100 | 398.6 | +298.6% |
| Fastenal Company (FAST) | 100 | 215.0 | +115.0% |
| SiteOne Landscape S… (SITE) | 100 | 117.6 | +17.6% |
| Pool Corporation (POOL) | 100 | 70.8 | -29.2% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: MSM vs GWW vs FAST vs SITE vs POOL
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
MSM is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability is your priority.
- Dividend streak 4 yrs, beta 0.86, yield 3.3%
- 3.3% yield, 4-year raise streak, vs GWW's 0.8%, (1 stock pays no dividend)
- +43.8% vs POOL's -33.9%
GWW ranks third and is worth considering specifically for long-term compounding and valuation efficiency.
- 463.0% 10Y total return vs FAST's 338.1%
- PEG 1.27 vs SITE's 6.91
- Lower P/E (28.3x vs 35.9x), PEG 1.27 vs 4.62
FAST carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure and sleep-well-at-night.
- Rev growth 8.7%, EPS growth 9.0%, 3Y rev CAGR 5.5%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.69, Low D/E 11.2%, current ratio 4.85x
- Beta 0.69, yield 2.0%, current ratio 4.85x
- 8.7% revenue growth vs MSM's -1.3%
SITE lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
Among these 5 stocks, POOL doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 8.7% revenue growth vs MSM's -1.3% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (28.3x vs 35.9x), PEG 1.27 vs 4.62 | |
| Quality / Margins | 15.3% margin vs SITE's 3.2% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.69 vs SITE's 1.24, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 3.3% yield, 4-year raise streak, vs GWW's 0.8%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +43.8% vs POOL's -33.9% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 24.9% ROA vs SITE's 4.6%, ROIC 31.2% vs 7.3% |
MSM vs GWW vs FAST vs SITE vs POOL — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
MSM vs GWW vs FAST vs SITE vs POOL — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
FAST leads in 1 of 6 categories
GWW leads 1 • MSM leads 0 • SITE leads 0 • POOL leads 0 • 4 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
FAST leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
GWW is the larger business by revenue, generating $18.4B annually — 4.8x MSM's $3.8B. FAST is the more profitable business, keeping 15.3% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to SITE's 3.2%. On growth, FAST holds the edge at +11.1% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $3.8B | $18.4B | $8.2B | $4.7B | $5.4B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $414M | $2.8B | $1.8B | $382M | $636M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $205M | $1.8B | $1.3B | $153M | $406M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $167M | $1.4B | $1.1B | $246M | $605M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +40.7% | +39.2% | +45.0% | +34.9% | +29.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +8.4% | +14.2% | +20.2% | +5.1% | +10.9% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +5.4% | +9.7% | +15.3% | +3.2% | +7.6% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +4.4% | +7.5% | +12.8% | +5.2% | +11.3% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +4.0% | +10.1% | +11.1% | +0.1% | +6.2% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +12.0% | +18.2% | +13.0% | +1.6% | +2.1% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — SITE and POOL each lead in 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 17.6x trailing earnings, POOL trades at a 57% valuation discount to FAST's 40.7x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), GWW offers better value at 1.56x vs SITE's 8.94x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $5.8B | $58.4B | $50.9B | $5.5B | $7.0B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $6.3B | $61.0B | $51.1B | $6.3B | $7.2B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 29.22x | 34.86x | 40.70x | 37.08x | 17.55x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 23.99x | 28.29x | 35.86x | 28.67x | 17.21x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 1.56x | 5.24x | 8.94x | 4.53x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 15.61x | 20.71x | 30.86x | 16.70x | 11.45x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.54x | 3.26x | 6.21x | 1.18x | 1.32x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 4.17x | 14.30x | 12.94x | 3.35x | 5.99x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 24.17x | 43.88x | 48.48x | 22.44x | 22.58x |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — GWW and FAST each lead in 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
GWW delivers a 43.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $43 in annual profit, vs $9 for SITE. FAST carries lower financial leverage with a 0.11x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to GWW's 0.76x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), GWW scores 8/9 vs MSM's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +14.8% | +43.1% | +31.9% | +9.1% | +32.2% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +8.2% | +19.7% | +24.9% | +4.6% | +11.3% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +12.3% | +32.1% | +31.2% | +7.3% | +22.3% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +17.5% | +39.7% | +39.7% | +9.6% | +22.0% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 5 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.39x | 0.76x | 0.11x | 0.58x | 0.29x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $483M | $2.6B | $165M | $789M | $244M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $56M | $585M | $277M | $191M | $105M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $539M | $3.2B | $442M | $980M | $349M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 12.56x | 22.63x | 259.39x | 6.79x | 12.20x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
GWW leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in GWW five years ago would be worth $27,320 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $4,771 for POOL. Over the past 12 months, MSM leads with a +43.8% total return vs POOL's -33.9%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors GWW at 22.8% vs POOL's -16.6% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +23.5% | +23.2% | +10.9% | -0.1% | -16.6% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +43.8% | +19.1% | +15.4% | +5.6% | -33.9% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +26.0% | +85.3% | +73.1% | -18.7% | -42.1% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +28.7% | +173.2% | +81.3% | -38.4% | -52.3% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +87.3% | +463.0% | +338.1% | +368.6% | +145.0% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +8.0% | +22.8% | +20.1% | -6.7% | -16.6% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — MSM and FAST each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
FAST is the less volatile stock with a 0.69 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than SITE's 1.24 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. MSM currently trades 97.4% 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 | 0.86x | 0.89x | 0.69x | 1.24x | 1.00x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $107.09 | $1286.56 | $50.63 | $168.56 | $345.00 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $74.30 | $906.52 | $38.97 | $112.23 | $186.95 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +97.4% | +95.9% | +87.6% | +74.1% | +55.2% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 68.3 | 58.3 | 46.9 | 36.8 | 29.7 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 604K | 239K | 7.3M | 689K | 764K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — MSM and GWW each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: MSM as "Hold", GWW as "Hold", FAST as "Hold", SITE as "Buy", POOL as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 46.7% upside for POOL (target: $279) vs -6.3% for MSM (target: $98). For income investors, MSM offers the higher dividend yield at 3.25% vs GWW's 0.79%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Hold | Hold | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $97.75 | $1157.43 | $46.57 | $162.29 | $279.29 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 28 | 38 | 31 | 15 | 21 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +3.3% | +0.8% | +2.0% | — | +2.6% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 4 | 37 | 1 | 2 | 15 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $3.39 | $9.73 | $0.87 | — | $4.96 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.7% | +1.8% | 0.0% | +1.8% | +5.0% |
FAST leads in 1 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow). GWW leads in 1 (Total Returns). 4 tied.
MSM vs GWW vs FAST vs SITE vs POOL: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is MSM or GWW or FAST or SITE or POOL a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Fastenal Company (FAST) is the stronger pick with 8.
7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -1. 3% for MSC Industrial Direct Co. , Inc. (MSM). 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 SiteOne Landscape Supply, Inc. (SITE) a "Buy" — based on 15 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 — MSM or GWW or FAST or SITE or POOL?
On trailing P/E, Pool Corporation (POOL) is the cheapest at 17.
6x versus Fastenal Company at 40. 7x. On forward P/E, Pool Corporation is actually cheaper at 17. 2x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: W. W. Grainger, Inc. wins at 1. 27x versus SiteOne Landscape Supply, Inc. 's 6. 91x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.
03Which is the better long-term investment — MSM or GWW or FAST or SITE or POOL?
Over the past 5 years, W.
W. Grainger, Inc. (GWW) delivered a total return of +173. 2%, compared to -52. 3% for Pool Corporation (POOL). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: GWW returned +463. 0% versus MSM's +87. 3%. 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 — MSM or GWW or FAST or SITE or POOL?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Fastenal Company (FAST) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
69β versus SiteOne Landscape Supply, Inc. 's 1. 24β — meaning SITE is approximately 79% more volatile than FAST relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Fastenal Company (FAST) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 11% versus 76% for W. W. Grainger, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — MSM or GWW or FAST or SITE or POOL?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Fastenal Company (FAST) is pulling ahead at 8.
7% versus -1. 3% for MSC Industrial Direct Co. , Inc. (MSM). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: SiteOne Landscape Supply, Inc. grew EPS 24. 4% year-over-year, compared to -22. 1% for MSC Industrial Direct Co. , Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, GWW leads at 5. 6% 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 — MSM or GWW or FAST or SITE or POOL?
Fastenal Company (FAST) is the more profitable company, earning 15.
3% net margin versus 3. 2% for SiteOne Landscape Supply, Inc. — meaning it keeps 15. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: FAST leads at 20. 2% versus 5. 1% for SITE. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — FAST leads at 45. 0%, 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 MSM or GWW or FAST or SITE or POOL 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, W. W. Grainger, Inc. (GWW) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 27x 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, Pool Corporation (POOL) trades at 17. 2x forward P/E versus 35. 9x for Fastenal Company — 18. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for POOL: 46. 7% to $279. 29.
08Which pays a better dividend — MSM or GWW or FAST or SITE or POOL?
In this comparison, MSM (3.
3% yield), POOL (2. 6% yield), FAST (2. 0% yield), GWW (0. 8% yield) pay a dividend. SITE does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is MSM or GWW or FAST or SITE or POOL better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Fastenal Company (FAST) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
69), 2. 0% yield, +338. 1% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (FAST: +338. 1%, SITE: +368. 6%), 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 MSM and GWW and FAST and SITE and POOL?
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: MSM is a small-cap income-oriented stock; GWW is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; FAST is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; SITE is a small-cap quality compounder stock; POOL is a small-cap deep-value stock. MSM, GWW, FAST, POOL pay a dividend while SITE does 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.