FSTR Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

EVI Industries has a net margin of 26.12% compared to L.B. Foster's net margin of 3.45%. L.B. Foster's return on equity of 28.12% beat EVI Industries's return on equity of 5.65%.

L.B. Foster has a consensus price target of --, signalling upside risk potential of 10.01%. On the other hand EVI Industries has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could fall by --. Given that L.B. Foster has higher upside potential than EVI Industries, analysts believe L.B. Foster is more attractive than EVI Industries.

L.B. Foster has a beta of 0.962, which suggesting that the stock is 3.809% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison EVI Industries has a beta of 0.346, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 65.448%.

L.B. Foster has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. EVI Industries offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.31 per share. L.B. Foster pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. EVI Industries pays out 72.1% of its earnings as a dividend. EVI Industries's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

L.B. Foster quarterly revenues are $137.5M, which are larger than EVI Industries quarterly revenues of $93.6M. L.B. Foster's net income of $35.9M is higher than EVI Industries's net income of $3.2M. Notably, L.B. Foster's price-to-earnings ratio is 7.01x while EVI Industries's PE ratio is 35.06x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for L.B. Foster is 0.56x versus 0.63x for EVI Industries. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Global Industrial has a net margin of 26.12% compared to L.B. Foster's net margin of 4.91%. L.B. Foster's return on equity of 28.12% beat Global Industrial's return on equity of 25.02%.

L.B. Foster has a consensus price target of --, signalling upside risk potential of 10.01%. On the other hand Global Industrial has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could grow by 58.23%. Given that Global Industrial has higher upside potential than L.B. Foster, analysts believe Global Industrial is more attractive than L.B. Foster.

L.B. Foster has a beta of 0.962, which suggesting that the stock is 3.809% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Global Industrial has a beta of 0.864, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 13.56%.

L.B. Foster has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Global Industrial offers a yield of 3.96% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.25 per share. L.B. Foster pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Global Industrial pays out 43.28% of its earnings as a dividend. Global Industrial's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

L.B. Foster quarterly revenues are $137.5M, which are smaller than Global Industrial quarterly revenues of $342.4M. L.B. Foster's net income of $35.9M is higher than Global Industrial's net income of $16.8M. Notably, L.B. Foster's price-to-earnings ratio is 7.01x while Global Industrial's PE ratio is 14.87x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for L.B. Foster is 0.56x versus 0.73x for Global Industrial. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Ryerson Holding has a net margin of 26.12% compared to L.B. Foster's net margin of -0.59%. L.B. Foster's return on equity of 28.12% beat Ryerson Holding's return on equity of 2.43%.

L.B. Foster has a consensus price target of --, signalling upside risk potential of 10.01%. On the other hand Ryerson Holding has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could grow by 25.52%. Given that Ryerson Holding has higher upside potential than L.B. Foster, analysts believe Ryerson Holding is more attractive than L.B. Foster.

L.B. Foster has a beta of 0.962, which suggesting that the stock is 3.809% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Ryerson Holding has a beta of 1.544, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 54.356%.

L.B. Foster has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Ryerson Holding offers a yield of 3.92% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.19 per share. L.B. Foster pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Ryerson Holding pays out 17.02% of its earnings as a dividend. Ryerson Holding's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

L.B. Foster quarterly revenues are $137.5M, which are smaller than Ryerson Holding quarterly revenues of $1.1B. L.B. Foster's net income of $35.9M is higher than Ryerson Holding's net income of -$6.6M. Notably, L.B. Foster's price-to-earnings ratio is 7.01x while Ryerson Holding's PE ratio is 30.35x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for L.B. Foster is 0.56x versus 0.14x for Ryerson Holding. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Transcat has a net margin of 26.12% compared to L.B. Foster's net margin of 4.85%. L.B. Foster's return on equity of 28.12% beat Transcat's return on equity of 8.06%.

L.B. Foster has a consensus price target of --, signalling upside risk potential of 10.01%. On the other hand Transcat has an analysts' consensus of $123.20 which suggests that it could grow by 12.29%. Given that Transcat has higher upside potential than L.B. Foster, analysts believe Transcat is more attractive than L.B. Foster.

L.B. Foster has a beta of 0.962, which suggesting that the stock is 3.809% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Transcat has a beta of 0.702, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 29.767%.

L.B. Foster has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Transcat offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. L.B. Foster pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Transcat pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

L.B. Foster quarterly revenues are $137.5M, which are larger than Transcat quarterly revenues of $67.8M. L.B. Foster's net income of $35.9M is higher than Transcat's net income of $3.3M. Notably, L.B. Foster's price-to-earnings ratio is 7.01x while Transcat's PE ratio is 53.70x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for L.B. Foster is 0.56x versus 3.60x for Transcat. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.