Flowserve vs Snap-on
Add, change or remove companies; up to four.
KIRA’s take AI analyst
I put Flowserve and Snap-on side by side, using each one’s latest annual report. Here is what stands out:
- Snap-on is the larger business, with $5.2B of revenue in fiscal 2025 against $4.7B for Flowserve.
- Flowserve grew revenue faster (3.8%, against 0.9%).
- Snap-on kept more of each dollar of sales as operating profit (25.8% operating margin, against 8.5%).
- Snap-on turned more of its sales into free cash flow (19.5% FCF margin, against 9.2%).
- Snap-on earned a higher return on the capital invested in it (19.2%, against 9.4%).
- Investors pay more for each dollar of Flowserve’s earnings: a P/E of 24.2x against 18.6x for Snap-on.
Who comes out ahead
Of the 10 measures where higher (or lower) is clearly better, how many each company leads.
Flowserve
FLS
3/10
Revenue growthPiotroski F-scoreShare count change
Snap-on
SNA
7/10
5-year growthOperating marginNet marginFCF marginReturn on capitalReturn on equityNet debt / EBITDA
Side by side
Best in the row
| Latest fiscal year | FLS FY25 | SNA FY25 |
|---|---|---|
| Size | ||
| Market cap | $8.9B | $18.8B |
| Revenue | $4.7B | $5.2B |
| Free cash flow | $435M | $1.0B |
| Net income | $346M | $1.0B |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth | 3.8% | 0.9% |
| 5-year growth | 4.9% | 5.5% |
| Share count change | −1.0% | −0.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 33.4% | — |
| Operating margin | 8.5% | 25.8% |
| Net margin | 7.3% | 19.7% |
| FCF margin | 9.2% | 19.5% |
| Return on capital | 9.4% | 19.2% |
| Return on equity | 16.5% | 18.0% |
| Balance sheet | ||
| Net debt | $845M | −$421M |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.7x | −0.3x |
| Dividends and buybacks | $365M | $791M |
| Valuation & quality | ||
| P/E | 24.2x | 18.6x |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 | 6 |
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.