FSTR Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

EVI Industries has a net margin of -0.19% compared to L.B. Foster's net margin of 1.22%. L.B. Foster's return on equity of 26.94% beat EVI Industries's return on equity of 5.46%.

L.B. Foster has a consensus price target of $33.00, signalling upside risk potential of 58.5%. 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 0.966, which suggesting that the stock is 3.355% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison EVI Industries has a beta of 0.309, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 69.124%.

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 $128.2M, which are larger than EVI Industries quarterly revenues of $92.7M. L.B. Foster's net income of -$242K is lower than EVI Industries's net income of $1.1M. Notably, L.B. Foster's price-to-earnings ratio is 5.32x while EVI Industries's PE ratio is 39.64x. 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 0.43x versus 0.68x for EVI Industries. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Global Industrial has a net margin of -0.19% compared to L.B. Foster's net margin of 3.54%. L.B. Foster's return on equity of 26.94% beat Global Industrial's return on equity of 22.66%.

L.B. Foster has a consensus price target of $33.00, signalling upside risk potential of 58.5%. On the other hand Global Industrial has an analysts' consensus of $38.00 which suggests that it could grow by 66.74%. 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 0.966, which suggesting that the stock is 3.355% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Global Industrial has a beta of 0.853, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 14.723%.

L.B. Foster has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Global Industrial offers a yield of 4.43% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.26 per share. L.B. Foster pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Global Industrial pays out 62.95% 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 $128.2M, which are smaller than Global Industrial quarterly revenues of $302.3M. L.B. Foster's net income of -$242K is lower than Global Industrial's net income of $10.7M. Notably, L.B. Foster's price-to-earnings ratio is 5.32x while Global Industrial's PE ratio is 14.52x. 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 0.43x versus 0.67x for Global Industrial. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Ryerson Holding has a net margin of -0.19% compared to L.B. Foster's net margin of -0.43%. L.B. Foster's return on equity of 26.94% beat Ryerson Holding's return on equity of -0.99%.

L.B. Foster has a consensus price target of $33.00, signalling upside risk potential of 58.5%. On the other hand Ryerson Holding has an analysts' consensus of $25.00 which suggests that it could grow by 7.07%. Given that L.B. Foster has higher upside potential than Ryerson Holding, analysts believe L.B. Foster is more attractive than Ryerson Holding.

L.B. Foster has a beta of 0.966, which suggesting that the stock is 3.355% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Ryerson Holding has a beta of 1.531, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 53.084%.

L.B. Foster has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Ryerson Holding offers a yield of 3.21% 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 -288.37% of its earnings as a dividend.

L.B. Foster quarterly revenues are $128.2M, which are smaller than Ryerson Holding quarterly revenues of $1B. L.B. Foster's net income of -$242K is higher than Ryerson Holding's net income of -$4.3M. Notably, L.B. Foster's price-to-earnings ratio is 5.32x while Ryerson Holding's PE ratio is 36.43x. 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 0.43x versus 0.17x for Ryerson Holding. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Transcat has a net margin of -0.19% compared to L.B. Foster's net margin of 3.53%. L.B. Foster's return on equity of 26.94% beat Transcat's return on equity of 6.75%.

L.B. Foster has a consensus price target of $33.00, signalling upside risk potential of 58.5%. On the other hand Transcat has an analysts' consensus of $100.15 which suggests that it could grow by 40.96%. Given that L.B. Foster has higher upside potential than Transcat, analysts believe L.B. Foster is more attractive than Transcat.

L.B. Foster has a beta of 0.966, which suggesting that the stock is 3.355% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Transcat has a beta of 0.662, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 33.82%.

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 $128.2M, which are larger than Transcat quarterly revenues of $66.8M. L.B. Foster's net income of -$242K is lower than Transcat's net income of $2.4M. Notably, L.B. Foster's price-to-earnings ratio is 5.32x while Transcat's PE ratio is 37.79x. 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 0.43x versus 2.39x for Transcat. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.