Industrial - Machinery
Compare Stocks
2 / 10Stock Comparison
TWIN vs WDFC
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Chemicals - Specialty
TWIN vs WDFC — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Industry | Industrial - Machinery | Chemicals - Specialty |
| Market Cap | $261M | $4.21B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $348M | $621M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $22M | $90M |
| Gross Margin | 27.9% | 55.4% |
| Operating Margin | 3.3% | 16.4% |
| Forward P/E | 24.8x | 35.2x |
| Total Debt | $49M | $98M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $16M | $58M |
TWIN vs WDFC — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Twin Disc, Incorpor… (TWIN) | 100 | 329.5 | +229.5% |
| WD-40 Company (WDFC) | 100 | 109.9 | +9.9% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: TWIN vs WDFC
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
TWIN is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth 15.5%, EPS growth -117.7%, 3Y rev CAGR 11.9%
- 15.5% revenue growth vs WDFC's 5.0%
- Lower P/E (24.8x vs 35.2x)
WDFC carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and long-term compounding.
- Dividend streak 22 yrs, beta 0.18, yield 1.8%
- 125.4% 10Y total return vs TWIN's 76.6%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.18, Low D/E 36.4%, current ratio 2.79x
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 15.5% revenue growth vs WDFC's 5.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (24.8x vs 35.2x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 14.4% margin vs TWIN's 6.3% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.18 vs TWIN's 1.04 | |
| Dividends | 1.8% yield, 22-year raise streak, vs TWIN's 0.9% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +167.6% vs WDFC's -8.1% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 19.5% ROA vs TWIN's 6.1%, ROIC 26.2% vs 3.9% |
TWIN vs WDFC — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
TWIN vs WDFC — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 2 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
WDFC leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
WDFC is the larger business by revenue, generating $621M annually — 1.8x TWIN's $348M. WDFC is the more profitable business, keeping 14.4% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to TWIN's 6.3%.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $348M | $621M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $27M | $111M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $22M | $90M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$70,000 | $78M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +27.9% | +55.4% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +3.3% | +16.4% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +6.3% | +14.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -0.0% | +12.6% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +0.3% | +0.6% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +22.7% | -7.9% |
Valuation Metrics
TWIN leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
On an enterprise value basis, TWIN's 11.9x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than WDFC's 38.0x.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $261M | $4.2B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $294M | $4.3B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -129.21x | 31.52x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 24.78x | 35.21x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 3.61x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 11.86x | 37.96x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.77x | 6.79x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.52x | 10.67x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 29.57x | 50.50x |
Profitability & Efficiency
WDFC leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
WDFC delivers a 33.9% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $34 in annual profit, vs $13 for TWIN. TWIN carries lower financial leverage with a 0.30x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to WDFC's 0.36x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), WDFC scores 7/9 vs TWIN's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +13.2% | +33.9% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +6.1% | +19.5% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +3.9% | +26.2% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +4.5% | +28.9% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 5 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.30x | 0.36x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $33M | $40M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $16M | $58M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $49M | $98M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 1.82x | 32.08x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
TWIN leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in TWIN five years ago would be worth $15,008 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $9,477 for WDFC. Over the past 12 months, TWIN leads with a +167.6% total return vs WDFC's -8.1%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors TWIN at 15.2% vs WDFC's 6.3% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +11.9% | +8.2% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +167.6% | -8.1% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +52.7% | +20.2% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +50.1% | -5.2% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +76.6% | +125.4% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +15.2% | +6.3% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — TWIN and WDFC each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
WDFC is the less volatile stock with a 0.18 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than TWIN's 1.04 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. TWIN currently trades 92.2% from its 52-week high vs WDFC's 83.3% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.04x | 0.18x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $19.63 | $253.24 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $6.69 | $175.38 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +92.2% | +83.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 43.6 | 44.6 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 48K | 176K |
Analyst Outlook
WDFC leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Wall Street rates TWIN as "Hold" and WDFC as "Hold". For income investors, WDFC offers the higher dividend yield at 1.76% vs TWIN's 0.91%.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $300.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 4 | 7 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +0.9% | +1.8% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 3 | 22 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.16 | $3.70 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.5% | +0.3% |
WDFC leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). TWIN leads in 2 (Valuation Metrics, Total Returns). 1 tied.
TWIN vs WDFC: Frequently Asked Questions
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is TWIN or WDFC a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Twin Disc, Incorporated (TWIN) is the stronger pick with 15.
5% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 5. 0% for WD-40 Company (WDFC). WD-40 Company (WDFC) offers the better valuation at 31. 5x trailing P/E (35. 2x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Twin Disc, Incorporated (TWIN) a "Hold" — based on 4 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 — TWIN or WDFC?
On forward P/E, Twin Disc, Incorporated is actually cheaper at 24.
8x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — TWIN or WDFC?
Over the past 5 years, Twin Disc, Incorporated (TWIN) delivered a total return of +50.
1%, compared to -5. 2% for WD-40 Company (WDFC). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: WDFC returned +125. 4% versus TWIN's +76. 6%. 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 — TWIN or WDFC?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), WD-40 Company (WDFC) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
18β versus Twin Disc, Incorporated's 1. 04β — meaning TWIN is approximately 478% more volatile than WDFC relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Twin Disc, Incorporated (TWIN) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 30% versus 36% for WD-40 Company — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — TWIN or WDFC?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Twin Disc, Incorporated (TWIN) is pulling ahead at 15.
5% versus 5. 0% for WD-40 Company (WDFC). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: WD-40 Company grew EPS 30. 9% year-over-year, compared to -117. 7% for Twin Disc, Incorporated. Over a 3-year CAGR, TWIN leads at 11. 9% 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 — TWIN or WDFC?
WD-40 Company (WDFC) is the more profitable company, earning 14.
7% net margin versus -0. 6% for Twin Disc, Incorporated — meaning it keeps 14. 7% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: WDFC leads at 16. 7% versus 2. 9% for TWIN. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — WDFC leads at 55. 1%, 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 TWIN or WDFC more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Twin Disc, Incorporated (TWIN) trades at 24.
8x forward P/E versus 35. 2x for WD-40 Company — 10. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis.
08Which pays a better dividend — TWIN or WDFC?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
WD-40 Company (WDFC) offers the highest yield at 1. 8%, versus 0. 9% for Twin Disc, Incorporated (TWIN).
09Is TWIN or WDFC better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, WD-40 Company (WDFC) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
18), 1. 8% yield, +125. 4% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (WDFC: +125. 4%, TWIN: +76. 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 TWIN and WDFC?
These companies operate in different sectors (TWIN (Industrials) and WDFC (Basic Materials)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: TWIN is a small-cap high-growth stock; WDFC is a small-cap quality compounder stock. 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 both.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.