Seek Returns logo

FLS vs. IR: A Head-to-Head Stock Comparison

Updated on

Here’s a clear look at FLS and IR, comparing key factors like historical performance, profitability, financial strength, growth, dividend, and valuation.

Company Profile

SymbolFLSIR
Company NameFlowserve CorporationIngersoll Rand Inc.
CountryUnited StatesUnited States
GICS SectorIndustrialsIndustrials
GICS IndustryMachineryMachinery
Market Capitalization7.06 billion USD32.10 billion USD
ExchangeNYSENYSE
Listing DateMarch 17, 1980May 12, 2017
Security TypeCommon StockCommon Stock

Historical Performance

This chart compares the performance of FLS and IR by tracking the growth of an initial $10,000 investment in each. Use the tabs to select the desired time period. Data is adjusted for dividends and splits.

FLS vs. IR: Growth of a $10,000 investment over the past one year.

Historical Performance at a Glance

SymbolFLSIR
5-Day Price Return3.07%5.89%
13-Week Price Return6.18%-4.10%
26-Week Price Return-14.81%-12.56%
52-Week Price Return19.27%-8.49%
Month-to-Date Return-3.69%-4.56%
Year-to-Date Return-6.17%-10.71%
10-Day Avg. Volume1.83M4.48M
3-Month Avg. Volume2.51M3.25M
3-Month Volatility36.09%34.83%
Beta1.311.45

Profitability

Return on Equity (TTM)

FLS

13.94%

Machinery Industry

Max
34.68%
Q3
19.06%
Median
13.13%
Q1
8.53%
Min
-4.87%

FLS’s Return on Equity of 13.94% is on par with the norm for the Machinery industry, indicating its profitability relative to shareholder equity is typical for the sector.

IR

5.06%

Machinery Industry

Max
34.68%
Q3
19.06%
Median
13.13%
Q1
8.53%
Min
-4.87%

IR’s Return on Equity of 5.06% is in the lower quartile for the Machinery industry. This indicates a less efficient generation of profit from its equity base when compared to its competitors.

FLS vs. IR: A comparison of their Return on Equity (TTM) against the Machinery industry benchmark.

Net Profit Margin (TTM)

FLS

6.28%

Machinery Industry

Max
19.74%
Q3
11.24%
Median
8.13%
Q1
5.38%
Min
-1.11%

FLS’s Net Profit Margin of 6.28% is aligned with the median group of its peers in the Machinery industry. This indicates its ability to convert revenue into profit is typical for the sector.

IR

7.04%

Machinery Industry

Max
19.74%
Q3
11.24%
Median
8.13%
Q1
5.38%
Min
-1.11%

IR’s Net Profit Margin of 7.04% is aligned with the median group of its peers in the Machinery industry. This indicates its ability to convert revenue into profit is typical for the sector.

FLS vs. IR: A comparison of their Net Profit Margin (TTM) against the Machinery industry benchmark.

Operating Profit Margin (TTM)

FLS

10.90%

Machinery Industry

Max
26.63%
Q3
16.15%
Median
11.27%
Q1
7.72%
Min
-4.91%

FLS’s Operating Profit Margin of 10.90% is around the midpoint for the Machinery industry, indicating that its efficiency in managing core business operations is typical for the sector.

IR

15.07%

Machinery Industry

Max
26.63%
Q3
16.15%
Median
11.27%
Q1
7.72%
Min
-4.91%

IR’s Operating Profit Margin of 15.07% is around the midpoint for the Machinery industry, indicating that its efficiency in managing core business operations is typical for the sector.

FLS vs. IR: A comparison of their Operating Profit Margin (TTM) against the Machinery industry benchmark.

Profitability at a Glance

SymbolFLSIR
Return on Equity (TTM)13.94%5.06%
Return on Assets (TTM)5.32%2.85%
Net Profit Margin (TTM)6.28%7.04%
Operating Profit Margin (TTM)10.90%15.07%
Gross Profit Margin (TTM)33.12%43.74%

Financial Strength

Current Ratio (MRQ)

FLS

2.10

Machinery Industry

Max
3.83
Q3
2.32
Median
1.72
Q1
1.28
Min
0.78

FLS’s Current Ratio of 2.10 aligns with the median group of the Machinery industry, indicating that its short-term liquidity is in line with its sector peers.

IR

2.29

Machinery Industry

Max
3.83
Q3
2.32
Median
1.72
Q1
1.28
Min
0.78

IR’s Current Ratio of 2.29 aligns with the median group of the Machinery industry, indicating that its short-term liquidity is in line with its sector peers.

FLS vs. IR: A comparison of their Current Ratio (MRQ) against the Machinery industry benchmark.

Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ)

FLS

0.67

Machinery Industry

Max
1.49
Q3
0.75
Median
0.44
Q1
0.26
Min
0.00

FLS’s Debt-to-Equity Ratio of 0.67 is typical for the Machinery industry, indicating its use of leverage is in line with the sector norm. This suggests a balanced approach to its capital structure.

IR

0.47

Machinery Industry

Max
1.49
Q3
0.75
Median
0.44
Q1
0.26
Min
0.00

IR’s Debt-to-Equity Ratio of 0.47 is typical for the Machinery industry, indicating its use of leverage is in line with the sector norm. This suggests a balanced approach to its capital structure.

FLS vs. IR: A comparison of their Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ) against the Machinery industry benchmark.

Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM)

FLS

10.07

Machinery Industry

Max
67.55
Q3
33.79
Median
13.87
Q1
7.97
Min
-1.43

FLS’s Interest Coverage Ratio of 10.07 is positioned comfortably within the norm for the Machinery industry, indicating a standard and healthy capacity to cover its interest payments.

IR

6.23

Machinery Industry

Max
67.55
Q3
33.79
Median
13.87
Q1
7.97
Min
-1.43

In the lower quartile for the Machinery industry, IR’s Interest Coverage Ratio of 6.23 indicates a tighter cushion for servicing debt, suggesting less financial flexibility than many of its competitors.

FLS vs. IR: A comparison of their Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM) against the Machinery industry benchmark.

Financial Strength at a Glance

SymbolFLSIR
Current Ratio (MRQ)2.102.29
Quick Ratio (MRQ)1.411.63
Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ)0.670.47
Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM)10.076.23

Growth

Revenue Growth

FLS vs. IR: A side-by-side comparison of their Revenue Growth for the MRQ (YoY), TTM (YoY), 3-Year CAGR, and 5-Year CAGR periods.

EPS Growth

FLS vs. IR: A side-by-side comparison of their EPS Growth for the MRQ (YoY), TTM (YoY), 3-Year CAGR, and 5-Year CAGR periods.

Dividend

Dividend Yield (TTM)

FLS

1.58%

Machinery Industry

Max
5.32%
Q3
2.84%
Median
1.87%
Q1
1.09%
Min
0.00%

FLS’s Dividend Yield of 1.58% is consistent with its peers in the Machinery industry, providing a dividend return that is standard for its sector.

IR

0.10%

Machinery Industry

Max
5.32%
Q3
2.84%
Median
1.87%
Q1
1.09%
Min
0.00%

IR’s Dividend Yield of 0.10% is in the lower quartile for the Machinery industry. This suggests the company’s strategy likely favors retaining earnings for growth over providing a high dividend income.

FLS vs. IR: A comparison of their Dividend Yield (TTM) against the Machinery industry benchmark.

Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM)

FLS

37.86%

Machinery Industry

Max
202.17%
Q3
98.65%
Median
55.54%
Q1
29.03%
Min
0.00%

FLS’s Dividend Payout Ratio of 37.86% is within the typical range for the Machinery industry, suggesting a balanced approach between shareholder payouts and company reinvestment.

IR

3.95%

Machinery Industry

Max
202.17%
Q3
98.65%
Median
55.54%
Q1
29.03%
Min
0.00%

IR’s Dividend Payout Ratio of 3.95% is in the lower quartile for the Machinery industry. This suggests a conservative dividend policy, with a strategic focus on reinvesting profits for future growth.

FLS vs. IR: A comparison of their Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM) against the Machinery industry benchmark.

Dividend at a Glance

SymbolFLSIR
Dividend Yield (TTM)1.58%0.10%
Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM)37.86%3.95%

Valuation

Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM)

FLS

23.93

Machinery Industry

Max
53.66
Q3
31.29
Median
22.00
Q1
16.18
Min
7.00

FLS’s P/E Ratio of 23.93 is within the middle range for the Machinery industry. This suggests its valuation is in line with the sector average, representing neither a significant premium nor a discount compared to its peers.

IR

61.73

Machinery Industry

Max
53.66
Q3
31.29
Median
22.00
Q1
16.18
Min
7.00

At 61.73, IR’s P/E Ratio is exceptionally high, exceeding the typical maximum for the Machinery industry. This suggests the stock may be significantly overvalued compared to its peers and implies high market expectations that could be difficult to meet.

FLS vs. IR: A comparison of their Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM) against the Machinery industry benchmark.

Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM)

FLS

1.50

Machinery Industry

Max
5.04
Q3
2.72
Median
1.67
Q1
1.04
Min
0.24

FLS’s P/S Ratio of 1.50 aligns with the market consensus for the Machinery industry. This suggests its valuation, based on sales, is seen as standard and is on par with its competitors.

IR

4.35

Machinery Industry

Max
5.04
Q3
2.72
Median
1.67
Q1
1.04
Min
0.24

IR’s P/S Ratio of 4.35 is in the upper echelon for the Machinery industry. This means the company is valued richly on its revenue stream compared to its peers, suggesting the stock is priced for a high level of future performance.

FLS vs. IR: A comparison of their Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM) against the Machinery industry benchmark.

Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ)

FLS

3.08

Machinery Industry

Max
7.23
Q3
3.90
Median
2.52
Q1
1.47
Min
0.49

FLS’s P/B Ratio of 3.08 is within the conventional range for the Machinery industry. This shows a balanced market view, where the stock’s price is neither at a significant premium nor a discount to the book value of its peers.

IR

3.33

Machinery Industry

Max
7.23
Q3
3.90
Median
2.52
Q1
1.47
Min
0.49

IR’s P/B Ratio of 3.33 is within the conventional range for the Machinery industry. This shows a balanced market view, where the stock’s price is neither at a significant premium nor a discount to the book value of its peers.

FLS vs. IR: A comparison of their Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ) against the Machinery industry benchmark.

Valuation at a Glance

SymbolFLSIR
Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM)23.9361.73
Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM)1.504.35
Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ)3.083.33
Price-to-Free Cash Flow Ratio (TTM)15.1524.65