Hubbell vs Ingersoll Rand
Add, change or remove companies; up to four.
KIRA’s take AI analyst
I put Hubbell and Ingersoll Rand side by side, using each one’s latest annual report. Here is what stands out:
- Ingersoll Rand is the larger business, with $7.7B of revenue in fiscal 2025 against $5.8B for Hubbell.
- Ingersoll Rand grew revenue faster (5.8%, against 3.8%).
- Hubbell kept more of each dollar of sales as operating profit (20.7% operating margin, against 15.0%).
- Ingersoll Rand turned more of its sales into free cash flow (16.0% FCF margin, against 15.0%).
- Hubbell earned a higher return on the capital invested in it (18.7%, against 6.5%).
- Investors pay more for each dollar of Ingersoll Rand’s earnings: a P/E of 30.7x against 27.1x for Hubbell.
Who comes out ahead
Of the 11 measures where higher (or lower) is clearly better, how many each company leads.
Hubbell
HUBB
6/11
Operating marginNet marginReturn on capitalReturn on equityPiotroski F-scoreNet debt / EBITDA
Ingersoll Rand
IR
5/11
Revenue growth5-year growthGross marginFCF marginShare count change
Side by side
Best in the row
| Latest fiscal year | HUBB FY25 | IR FY25 |
|---|---|---|
| Size | ||
| Market cap | $24.5B | $29.2B |
| Revenue | $5.8B | $7.7B |
| Free cash flow | $875M | $1.2B |
| Net income | $887M | $581M |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth | 3.8% | 5.8% |
| 5-year growth | 9.7% | 14.0% |
| Share count change | −0.9% | −1.5% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 35.3% | 43.6% |
| Operating margin | 20.7% | 15.0% |
| Net margin | 15.2% | 7.6% |
| FCF margin | 15.0% | 16.0% |
| Return on capital | 18.7% | 6.5% |
| Return on equity | 24.5% | 5.7% |
| Balance sheet | ||
| Net debt | $1.8B | $3.5B |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.3x | 2.1x |
| Dividends and buybacks | $225M | $1.0B |
| Valuation & quality | ||
| P/E | 27.1x | 30.7x |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 5 |
Ten years
Revenue
Operating margin
Free cash flow
Return on capital
Each company's latest fiscal year; fiscal years end in different months. The best value in each row is highlighted where higher (or lower) is clearly better. Not investment advice.