Medical - Devices
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
UFPT vs NNBR vs ESAB vs SMPL vs GTLS
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Conglomerates
Manufacturing - Metal Fabrication
Packaged Foods
Industrial - Machinery
UFPT vs NNBR vs ESAB vs SMPL vs GTLS — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Medical - Devices | Conglomerates | Manufacturing - Metal Fabrication | Packaged Foods | Industrial - Machinery |
| Market Cap | $1.71B | $139M | $6.24B | $1.24B | $9.93B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $603M | $435M | $2.91B | $1.45B | $4.26B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $68M | $-35M | $207M | $91M | $40M |
| Gross Margin | 28.3% | 2.3% | 35.4% | 34.0% | 32.6% |
| Operating Margin | 15.3% | -3.3% | 16.2% | 14.4% | 8.5% |
| Forward P/E | 23.3x | 43.6x | 17.7x | 7.5x | 16.4x |
| Total Debt | $154M | $211M | $1.43B | $304M | $3.74B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $20M | $11M | $186M | $98M | $366M |
UFPT vs NNBR vs ESAB vs SMPL vs GTLS — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Mar 22 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| UFP Technologies, I… (UFPT) | 100 | 334.5 | +234.5% |
| NN, Inc. (NNBR) | 100 | 95.8 | -4.2% |
| ESAB Corporation (ESAB) | 100 | 204.8 | +104.8% |
| The Simply Good Foo… (SMPL) | 100 | 32.8 | -67.2% |
| Chart Industries, I… (GTLS) | 100 | 120.7 | +20.7% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: UFPT vs NNBR vs ESAB vs SMPL vs GTLS
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
UFPT carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 19.5%, EPS growth 15.7%, 3Y rev CAGR 19.4%
- 7.9% 10Y total return vs GTLS's 7.7%
- 19.5% revenue growth vs NNBR's -9.1%
- 11.3% margin vs NNBR's -8.0%
NNBR ranks third and is worth considering specifically for momentum.
- +50.8% vs SMPL's -64.8%
ESAB is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability.
- Dividend streak 4 yrs, beta 1.24, yield 0.4%
- 0.4% yield, 4-year raise streak, vs GTLS's 0.3%, (3 stocks pay no dividend)
SMPL is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if sleep-well-at-night and valuation efficiency is your priority.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.38, Low D/E 16.8%, current ratio 3.64x
- PEG 0.31 vs ESAB's 2.44
- Beta 0.38, current ratio 3.64x
- Lower P/E (7.5x vs 16.4x)
Among these 5 stocks, GTLS doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 19.5% revenue growth vs NNBR's -9.1% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (7.5x vs 16.4x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 11.3% margin vs NNBR's -8.0% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.38 vs NNBR's 2.04, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 0.4% yield, 4-year raise streak, vs GTLS's 0.3%, (3 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +50.8% vs SMPL's -64.8% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 10.5% ROA vs NNBR's -7.7%, ROIC 12.7% vs -4.5% |
UFPT vs NNBR vs ESAB vs SMPL vs GTLS — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
UFPT vs NNBR vs ESAB vs SMPL vs GTLS — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
UFPT leads in 2 of 6 categories
SMPL leads 1 • NNBR leads 1 • ESAB leads 1 • GTLS leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
UFPT leads this category, winning 3 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. UFPT is the more profitable business, keeping 11.3% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to NNBR's -8.0%. On growth, NNBR holds the edge at +12.1% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $603M | $435M | $2.9B | $1.4B | $4.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $116M | $22M | $539M | $231M | $644M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $68M | -$35M | $207M | $91M | $40M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $79M | -$1M | $218M | $174M | $203M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +28.3% | +2.3% | +35.4% | +34.0% | +32.6% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +15.3% | -3.3% | +16.2% | +14.4% | +8.5% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +11.3% | -8.0% | +7.1% | +6.3% | +0.9% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +13.1% | -0.3% | +7.5% | +12.0% | +4.8% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +3.4% | +12.1% | +9.9% | -0.3% | -2.5% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +6.7% | -8.7% | -29.1% | -31.6% | -36.1% |
Valuation Metrics
SMPL leads this category, winning 5 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 12.2x trailing earnings, SMPL trades at a 98% valuation discount to GTLS's 628.5x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), SMPL offers better value at 0.51x vs ESAB's 3.79x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1.7B | $139M | $6.2B | $1.2B | $9.9B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $1.8B | $338M | $7.5B | $1.4B | $13.3B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 25.24x | -2.58x | 27.53x | 12.20x | 628.45x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 23.31x | 43.60x | 17.74x | 7.45x | 16.40x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 0.67x | — | 3.79x | 0.51x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 15.91x | 19.03x | 13.00x | 5.97x | 14.33x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.83x | 0.33x | 2.19x | 0.86x | 2.33x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 4.08x | 0.93x | 2.82x | 0.70x | 2.79x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 21.62x | 19.16x | 29.24x | 7.86x | 48.95x |
Profitability & Efficiency
UFPT leads this category, winning 8 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
UFPT delivers a 17.4% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $17 in annual profit, vs $-28 for NNBR. SMPL carries lower financial leverage with a 0.17x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to NNBR's 1.44x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), UFPT scores 6/9 vs NNBR's 3/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +17.4% | -28.4% | +9.5% | +5.2% | +1.2% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +10.5% | -7.7% | +4.2% | +3.7% | +0.4% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +12.7% | -4.5% | +11.9% | +8.1% | +7.4% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +16.1% | -5.0% | +13.1% | +9.4% | +8.6% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.36x | 1.44x | 0.65x | 0.17x | 1.11x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $134M | $200M | $1.2B | $206M | $3.4B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $20M | $11M | $186M | $98M | $366M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $154M | $211M | $1.4B | $304M | $3.7B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 9.42x | -0.74x | 3.40x | 6.77x | 1.08x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
NNBR leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in UFPT five years ago would be worth $40,607 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $3,565 for SMPL. Over the past 12 months, NNBR leads with a +50.8% total return vs SMPL's -64.8%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors NNBR at 40.7% vs SMPL's -31.5% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -0.9% | +106.0% | -8.9% | -36.4% | +0.6% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +0.8% | +50.8% | -15.8% | -64.8% | +37.6% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +55.3% | +178.4% | +75.8% | -67.8% | +62.7% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +306.1% | -63.4% | +107.2% | -64.3% | +29.5% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +785.4% | -75.7% | +107.2% | +3.7% | +772.5% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +15.8% | +40.7% | +20.7% | -31.5% | +17.6% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — SMPL and GTLS each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
SMPL is the less volatile stock with a 0.38 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 SMPL's 33.7% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.01x | 2.04x | 1.24x | 0.38x | 0.56x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $274.93 | $2.99 | $137.42 | $36.92 | $208.51 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $173.88 | $1.10 | $89.41 | $10.21 | $140.50 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +80.5% | +92.3% | +74.5% | +33.7% | +99.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 63.9 | 65.6 | 50.7 | 42.9 | 51.2 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 203K | 936K | 612K | 2.8M | 1.6M |
Analyst Outlook
ESAB leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: UFPT as "Buy", NNBR as "Buy", ESAB as "Buy", SMPL as "Buy", GTLS as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 62.1% upside for SMPL (target: $20) vs -6.5% for GTLS (target: $194). For income investors, ESAB offers the higher dividend yield at 0.35% vs GTLS's 0.29%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $298.00 | — | $146.67 | $20.17 | $193.81 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 2 | 9 | 10 | 24 | 37 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | +0.4% | — | +0.3% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 0 | 4 | — | 1 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | $0.36 | — | $0.60 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | +4.1% | 0.0% |
UFPT leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). SMPL leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 1 tied.
UFPT vs NNBR vs ESAB vs SMPL vs GTLS: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is UFPT or NNBR or ESAB or SMPL or GTLS a better buy right now?
For growth investors, UFP Technologies, Inc.
(UFPT) is the stronger pick with 19. 5% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -9. 1% for NN, Inc. (NNBR). The Simply Good Foods Company (SMPL) offers the better valuation at 12. 2x trailing P/E (7. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate UFP Technologies, Inc. (UFPT) a "Buy" — based on 2 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 — UFPT or NNBR or ESAB or SMPL or GTLS?
On trailing P/E, The Simply Good Foods Company (SMPL) is the cheapest at 12.
2x versus Chart Industries, Inc. at 628. 5x. On forward P/E, The Simply Good Foods Company is actually cheaper at 7. 5x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: The Simply Good Foods Company wins at 0. 31x versus ESAB Corporation's 2. 44x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — UFPT or NNBR or ESAB or SMPL or GTLS?
Over the past 5 years, UFP Technologies, Inc.
(UFPT) delivered a total return of +306. 1%, compared to -64. 3% for The Simply Good Foods Company (SMPL). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: UFPT returned +785. 4% 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 — UFPT or NNBR or ESAB or SMPL or GTLS?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), The Simply Good Foods Company (SMPL) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
38β versus NN, Inc. 's 2. 04β — meaning NNBR is approximately 438% more volatile than SMPL relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, The Simply Good Foods Company (SMPL) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 17% versus 144% for NN, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — UFPT or NNBR or ESAB or SMPL or GTLS?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), UFP Technologies, Inc.
(UFPT) is pulling ahead at 19. 5% versus -9. 1% for NN, Inc. (NNBR). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: UFP Technologies, Inc. grew EPS 15. 7% 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 — UFPT or NNBR or ESAB or SMPL or GTLS?
UFP Technologies, Inc.
(UFPT) is the more profitable company, earning 11. 3% net margin versus -8. 1% for NN, Inc. — meaning it keeps 11. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ESAB leads at 17. 3% versus -4. 3% for NNBR. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — ESAB leads at 35. 5%, 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 UFPT or NNBR or ESAB or SMPL or GTLS 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, The Simply Good Foods Company (SMPL) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 31x versus ESAB Corporation's 2. 44x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, The Simply Good Foods Company (SMPL) trades at 7. 5x forward P/E versus 43. 6x for NN, Inc. — 36. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for SMPL: 62. 1% to $20. 17.
08Which pays a better dividend — UFPT or NNBR or ESAB or SMPL or GTLS?
In this comparison, ESAB (0.
4% yield), GTLS (0. 3% yield) pay a dividend. UFPT, NNBR, SMPL do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is UFPT or NNBR or ESAB or SMPL or GTLS 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 UFPT and NNBR and ESAB and SMPL and GTLS?
These companies operate in different sectors (UFPT (Healthcare) and NNBR (Industrials) and ESAB (Industrials) and SMPL (Consumer Defensive) and GTLS (Industrials)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: UFPT is a small-cap high-growth stock; NNBR is a small-cap quality compounder stock; ESAB is a small-cap quality compounder stock; SMPL is a small-cap deep-value stock; GTLS 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 all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.