Lennox International vs Masco

Add, change or remove companies; up to four.

KIRA’s take AI analyst

I put Lennox International and Masco side by side, using each one’s latest annual report. Here is what stands out:

Masco is the larger business, with $7.6B of revenue in fiscal 2025 against $5.2B for Lennox International.
Lennox International grew revenue faster (−2.7%, against −3.4%).
Lennox International kept more of each dollar of sales as operating profit (20.1% operating margin, against 16.5%).
Lennox International turned more of its sales into free cash flow (12.3% FCF margin, against 11.5%).
Investors pay more for each dollar of Masco’s earnings: a P/E of 18.7x against 16.2x for Lennox International.

Who comes out ahead

Of the 10 measures where higher (or lower) is clearly better, how many each company leads.

Lennox International

LII

6/10

Revenue growth5-year growthOperating marginNet marginFCF marginNet debt / EBITDA

Masco

MAS

4/10

Gross marginReturn on capitalPiotroski F-scoreShare count change

Side by side

Best in the row

Latest fiscal year	LII FY25	MAS FY25
Size
Market cap	$12.8B	$15.4B
Revenue	$5.2B	$7.6B
Free cash flow	$639M	$866M
Net income	$806M	$810M
Growth
Revenue growth	−2.7%	−3.4%
5-year growth	7.4%	1.0%
Share count change	−1.1%	−4.1%
Profitability
Gross margin	33.4%	35.4%
Operating margin	20.1%	16.5%
Net margin	15.5%	10.7%
FCF margin	12.3%	11.5%
Return on capital	40.1%	40.4%
Return on equity	75.8%	—
Balance sheet
Net debt	$1.4B	$2.3B
Net debt / EBITDA	1.2x	1.7x
Dividends and buybacks	$655M	$832M
Valuation & quality
P/E	16.2x	18.7x
Piotroski F-score	5	7

Ten years

Revenue

FY16

LII $3.6B

MAS $7.4B

FY17

LII $3.8B

MAS $6.0B

FY18

LII $3.9B

MAS $6.7B

FY19

LII $3.8B

MAS $6.7B

FY20

LII $3.6B

MAS $7.2B

FY21

LII $4.2B

MAS $8.4B

FY22

LII $4.7B

MAS $8.7B

FY23

LII $5.0B

MAS $8.0B

FY24

LII $5.3B

MAS $7.8B

FY25

LII $5.2B

MAS $7.6B

FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25

LII MAS

Operating margin

FY16

LII 11.8%

MAS 14.8%

FY17

LII 12.9%

MAS 17.1%

FY18

LII 13.1%

MAS 16.2%

FY19

LII 17.3%

MAS 16.2%

FY20

LII 13.2%

MAS 18.0%

FY21

LII 14.1%

MAS 16.8%

FY22

LII 13.9%

MAS 14.9%

FY23

LII 15.9%

MAS 16.9%

FY24

LII 19.5%

MAS 17.4%

FY25

LII 20.1%

MAS 16.5%

FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25

LII MAS

Free cash flow

FY16

LII $290M

MAS $609M

FY17

LII $227M

MAS $578M

FY18

LII $400M

MAS $813M

FY19

LII $291M

MAS $671M

FY20

LII $534M

MAS $839M

FY21

LII $409M

MAS $802M

FY22

LII $201M

MAS $616M

FY23

LII $486M

MAS $1.2B

FY24

LII $782M

MAS $907M

FY25

LII $639M

MAS $866M

FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25

LII MAS

Return on capital

FY16

LII 35.8%

MAS 40.5%

FY17

LII 35.5%

MAS 36.9%

FY18

LII 42.9%

MAS 36.5%

FY19

LII 58.6%

MAS 35.8%

FY20

LII 42.8%

MAS 49.8%

FY21

LII 55.4%

MAS 48.4%

FY22

LII 48.3%

MAS 43.0%

FY23

LII 43.8%

MAS 42.7%

FY24

LII 50.9%

MAS 43.6%

FY25

LII 40.1%

MAS 40.4%

FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25

LII MAS

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.