Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. ranks below the peer group median, with a relatively even profile across the main dimensions. The trend is mixed and momentum is weakening. Price action is modestly ahead of the structural profile — a mild divergence, not yet a decisive signal.
Peer-relative scores, weakest to strongest
Stanley Black & Decker is a global manufacturer of tools, storage solutions, and industrial equipment. The company recently divested its aerospace unit and is increasing its focus on AI-driven innovation in its core businesses.
ROIC of 5.94% and an operating margin of 10.4% indicate a fundamentally sound business, yet Stanley Black & Decker’s persistent market confidence break explains the discount. Despite these efficiency signals, the company’s valuation remains at a steep discount, reflecting investor skepticism about the durability of its earnings and the stability of its business model.
Internally, the quality score of just 20/100 (bottom quintile among peers) and negative revenue growth of -1% YoY show why the market remains unconvinced. The severe max drawdown of -71.3% and a low stability score of 23/100 indicate fragility. While the Q4 2025 EPS beat ($1.41 vs consensus) appears solid, it does not translate into a sustained reversal of weak growth and confidence metrics. The market continues to see these positives as isolated rather than structural improvements.
External context adds detail. Recognition for AI innovation (America’s Most Innovative Companies, April 2026) and the recent EPS beat support the execution story and long-term positioning. However, recent analyst downgrades and price target cuts, as well as ongoing regulatory headwinds from trade policy, mean the discount is not simply a function of sector-wide pressure. These factors show that the company’s operational resilience has yet to overcome persistent doubts about growth and stability relative to peers.
Compared to its peer group, Stanley Black & Decker’s weak quality and growth scores are more severe than many, though not entirely unique. The recent divestiture and AI focus distinguish it partly, but the structural challenges remain more acute than for most direct competitors. The discount is thus partly driven by factors more specific to Stanley Black & Decker than to the sector as a whole.
A more constructive read would require revenue growth returning to positive territory versus peers and a material improvement in stability and risk profile. Supporting improvement would include evidence that strategic repositioning delivers sustained margin or growth gains. Until then, Stanley Black & Decker appears as a discount case for understandable reasons.
Break down SWK's position across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
This analysis is rule-based and descriptive. Peer-relative scores are derived from functional peer group comparisons using publicly available financial data. Scores reflect structural positioning only and do not constitute investment advice, a buy or sell recommendation, or a forecast of future performance. AssetNext peer scores are recalculated periodically as new data becomes available.
AssetNext scores reflect each company's structural position within its functional peer group — not a ranking against all stocks simultaneously. Peers are identified by similarity across eight financial dimensions, including revenue growth trajectory, margin structure, capital intensity, and earnings stability. A score of 75 means the company ranks in the top quartile within its own peer group, not the entire market.
Four dimension scores drive the overall peer score: Growth (revenue trajectory and expansion dynamics), Quality (margin structure and capital efficiency), Valuation (peer-relative pricing on standard multiples), and Stability (earnings consistency and financial predictability). Each dimension is scored 0–100 relative to the peer group, then combined into an overall peer score using equal weighting.
Because scores are peer-relative, the same company can have slightly different scores in different index universes. On comparison pages, both companies are shown within their shared peer universe wherever possible — so the scores are directly comparable. The peer basis is stated on each score card.
Scores are recalculated periodically as underlying financial data is updated. All analysis is descriptive and rule-based — AssetNext describes structural realities and never issues buy, sell or hold recommendations.