Skip to main content
Homepage
Full 18-step deep-dive · ~20–30 min · a member feature.
AGING Analysis Report
Aug 11, 2026
12 days ago · 100% complete
NOT DEPENDABLE This report predates a filing — its financial basis has been replaced.
Report generated: Aug 11, 2026 · Filing on record since: Aug 19, 2026 · 8 days after
For AI assistants & researchers — machine-readable summary of this page

What this page is: Delvantic's full research page for Illinois Tool Works Inc. (ITW) — AI-driven forensic equity research: mechanical valuation models (DCF, EPV, anchored-PE, scenario) plus three independent AI lenses (Quality / Value / Sentiment). Everything below is rendered server-side; you are not missing content that requires JavaScript. All scores are predictions and research opinions, not financial advice.

Our current read (analysis of 2026-08-23): Designation Watch · Gem Score -2 (−100…+100 Quality+Value blend) · Quality 76 · Value -65 · Sentiment 8 (timing only, not weighted) · Composite fair value $145.41 vs $294.52 at analysis

Page map (sections in order; each card carries a stable reference-name attribute you can cite):

  • profile-header / price-overview — company profile, live quote, market cap
  • extended-analysisthe core: three AI lens reads with findings, scores, and the analyst memo
  • future-predictions — our forward price-band predictions
  • market-narrative / ai-findings / gpt-critique — narrative context, cross-model findings, and an adversarial critique of our own analysis (near the end of the document)
  • Members-only sections (render as login gates for anonymous readers): price-history, income-trend, key-metrics, financials (statement tables), insider-trading. The analysis above is public; the raw data tables require a free account.

More for machine readers: site briefing at /llms.txt · any ticker resolves at delvantic.com/stock/TICKER · raw inputs are public-company filings and market data (via licensed data feeds); every model, score, lens read, and prediction on this page is Delvantic's own analysis.

Illinois Tool Works Inc.

ITW NYSE
Industrials · Specialty Industrial Machinery
Glenview, IL 60025, United States itw.com Updated Aug 11, 12:11am
Price
$294.52
Market Cap
$83.9B
Employees
43,000
Beta
1.01
Avg Volume
1,408,986
Last Dividend
$6.44
CEO
Mr. Christopher A. O'Herlihy

Illinois Tool Works Inc. is a diversified industrial manufacturing company that develops specialized equipment, consumables, and related service solutions for a wide range of end markets. The company operates through seven segments: Automotive OEM, Food Equipment, Test and Measurement and Electronics, Welding, Polymers and Fluids, Construction Products, and Specialty Products. Its offerings span components and fasteners for vehicles, commercial kitchen equipment, testing and inspection systems, welding equipment and consumables, industrial adhesives and fluids, construction fastening systems, and packaging, coding, and appliance components. Illinois Tool Works Inc. serves industrial, commercial, and institutional customers globally, providing highly engineered, application-specific products that are integrated into customers’ production processes and infrastructure. Founded in 1912 and headquartered in Glenview, Illinois, the company plays a significant role in the industrials sector by supplying essential tools, systems, and consumables that support manufacturing efficiency, maintenance, and operations across multiple industries worldwide.

Runs with full report Generated: Aug 11, 2026 12:17am
Price Overview
Price at report time
$294.52
as of Aug 11, 12:40am (12d ago)
Change · Aug 11
-2.14 (-0.72%)
Day Range
$293.44 – $296.70
52-Week Range
$238.82 – $303.16
50-Day MA
$270.72
200-Day MA
$263.45
Volume
590,531.00
Right now · live
Log in to get the live feed
Members see the real-time price and the move since this report (over 12d).
Share Structure
Outstanding 284,800,000.00
Float 254,488,736.00
Free Float 89.4%
High free float — 89.4% of shares trade freely, ~10.6% held by insiders/institutions
Very liquid — most shares trade freely. Low insider ownership can mean less management alignment, but makes large position sizing straightforward.
Price History (1 Year)
Last updated: Aug 11, 2026 12:43am (12d ago)
Revenue & Net Income Trend
The directional story — useful even when net income is negative.
Last updated: Aug 6, 2026 7:06am (17d ago)
Revenue
The top line — total sales before any costs or taxes are subtracted. A measure of how much business the company is doing.
Net Income
The bottom line — profit left after subtracting all expenses, interest, and taxes from revenue. Reflects accounting profitability, but includes non-cash items like depreciation, so it isn't the same as cash earned.
Operating Cash Flow
The real cash generated by the day-to-day business — selling products, paying suppliers, collecting from customers. Calculated from net income by adding back non-cash items and adjusting for timing (unpaid bills, unsold inventory). When OCF consistently lags net income, the reported profit may not be converting to real money.
Period Revenue Net Income Net Margin YoY/QoQ
Key Metrics
TD Twelve Data statement HEX SEC filing
Industry comparison last run: Aug 11, 2026 12:12am
P/E Ratio (Price per dollar of earnings)
HEX
Stock Price / EPS (Diluted)
28.08
Stock Price: $294.52
EPS (Diluted): 10.49
P/B Ratio (Price vs net asset value)
HEX
Stock Price / Book Value Per Share
26.69
Stock Price: $294.52
Total Equity: $3.23B
Shares: 292,300,000
EV/EBITDA (Total value vs operating profit)
HEX
Enterprise Value / EBITDA
20.73
Market Cap: $83.88B
Total Debt: $8.97B
Cash: $851.00M
EBITDA: $4.53B
Enterprise Value (Takeover price (cap + debt - cash))
HEX
Market Cap + Total Debt - Cash
$94.0B
Market Cap: $83.88B
Total Debt: $8.97B
Cash: $851.00M
Gross Margin (Revenue left after direct costs)
HEX
Gross Profit / Revenue
52.9%
Gross Profit: $8.49B
Revenue: $16.04B
Operating Margin (Revenue left after all operations)
HEX
Operating Income / Revenue
26.3%
Operating Income: $4.22B
Revenue: $16.04B
Net Margin (Revenue left as actual profit)
HEX
Net Income / Revenue
19.1%
Net Income: $3.07B
Revenue: $16.04B
ROE (Profit from shareholder equity)
HEX
Net Income / Total Equity
95.0%
Net Income: $3.07B
Total Equity: $3.23B
ROIC (Profit from all invested capital)
HEX
NOPAT / Invested Capital
28.7%
Operating Income: $4.22B
Tax Rate: 22.7%
Equity: $3.23B
Total Debt: $8.97B
Cash: $851.00M
Current Ratio (Can it pay short-term bills)
HEX
Current Assets / Current Liabilities
1.21
Current Assets: $6.20B
Current Liabilities: $5.13B
Debt/Equity (Leverage — debt vs equity)
HEX
Total Debt / Total Equity
2.78
Short-Term Debt: $2.29B
Long-Term Debt: $6.68B
Total Debt: $8.97B
Total Equity: $3.23B
Rev/Share (Top-line per share)
HEX
Revenue / Shares Outstanding
$54.89
Revenue: $16.04B
Shares: 292,300,000
Book Value/Share (Net assets per share)
HEX
(Total Assets - Total Liabilities) / Shares
$11.04
Total Equity: $3.23B
Shares: 292,300,000
FCF/Share (Real cash generated per share)
HEX
(Operating Cash Flow + CapEx) / Shares
$9.26
Operating CF: $3.13B
CapEx: -$419.00M
Shares: 292,300,000
CapEx is negative (outflow) — added to OCF to get FCF
Div Yield (Annual income from holding)
TD
Last Annual Dividend / Stock Price
2.2%
Last Dividend: $6.44
Stock Price: $294.52
Payout Ratio (Earnings paid out as dividends)
HEX
Dividends Paid / Net Income
58.2%
Dividends Paid: -$1.79B
Net Income: $3.07B
Industry Benchmarks
Last run: Aug 11, 2026 12:12am
Compares ITW against LLM-researched typical ranges for its industry. One research call per industry, cached indefinitely — every stock in the same industry reuses the same baseline.
Income Statement (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 6, 2026 7:06am (17d ago)
Metric 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Revenue $14.5B $15.9B $16.1B $15.9B $16.0B
Cost of Revenue $8.1B $7.9B $7.6B $7.6B
Gross Profit $7.8B $8.2B $8.3B $8.5B
Operating Expenses $4.0B $4.1B $4.0B $4.3B
Operating Income $3.5B $3.8B $4.0B $4.3B $4.2B
Net Income $2.7B $3.0B $3.0B $3.5B $3.1B
EBITDA $3.8B $4.1B $4.3B $4.6B $4.5B
EPS $8.55 $9.80 $9.77 $11.75 $10.52
EPS (Diluted) $8.51 $9.77 $9.74 $11.71 $10.49
Balance Sheet (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 6, 2026 7:43am (17d ago)
Metric 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Cash & Equivalents $1.5B $708.0M $1.1B $948.0M $851.0M
Total Current Assets $6.4B $6.3B $6.2B $5.9B $6.2B
Total Assets $16.1B $15.4B $15.5B $15.1B $16.1B
Current Liabilities $3.5B $4.5B $4.7B $4.3B $5.1B
Long-Term Debt $6.9B $6.2B $6.3B $6.3B $6.7B
Total Liabilities $12.5B $12.3B $12.5B $11.8B $12.9B
Total Equity $3.6B $3.1B $3.0B $3.3B $3.2B
Retained Earnings $24.3B $25.8B $27.1B $28.9B $30.2B
Cash Flow (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 6, 2026 7:06am (17d ago)
Metric 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Operating Cash Flow $2.6B $2.3B $3.5B $3.3B $3.1B
Capital Expenditure -$296.0M -$412.0M -$455.0M -$437.0M -$419.0M
Free Cash Flow $2.3B $1.9B $3.1B $2.8B $2.7B
Acquisitions (net) -$731.0M -$2.0M $0 -$115.0M -$119.0M
Net Debt Issued / (Repaid) $210.0M $1.4B $973.0M $1.9B $508.0M
Dividends Paid -$1.5B -$1.5B -$1.6B -$1.7B -$1.8B
Stock Buybacks -$1.0B -$1.8B -$1.5B -$1.5B -$1.5B
Net Change in Cash -$1.0B -$819.0M $357.0M -$117.0M -$97.0M
Growth Trends (YoY %)
Last updated: Aug 6, 2026 7:06am (17d ago)
Metric 2022 2023 2024 2025
Revenue Growth +10.2% +1.1% -1.3% +0.9%
Gross Profit Growth +4.7% +1.6% +2.3%
Operating Income Growth +9.0% +6.6% +5.5% -1.1%
Net Income Growth +12.6% -2.5% +18.0% -12.1%
EBITDA Growth +8.3% +6.3% +5.6% -0.7%
Dividend History (Last 20)
Last updated: Aug 6, 2026 7:43am (17d ago)
Date Dividend Declaration Record Payment
2026-06-30 $1.61
2026-03-31 $1.61
2025-12-31 $1.61
2025-09-30 $1.61
2025-06-30 $1.50
2025-03-31 $1.50
2024-12-31 $1.50
2024-09-30 $1.50
2024-06-28 $1.40
2024-03-27 $1.40
2023-12-28 $1.40
2023-09-28 $1.40
2023-06-29 $1.31
2023-03-30 $1.31
2022-12-29 $1.31
2022-09-29 $1.31
2022-06-29 $1.22
2022-03-30 $1.22
2021-12-30 $1.22
2021-09-29 $1.22
0Company Classification 1Industry Landscape 2Company Momentum 3Forward Projection 4aDCF Valuation 4bEarnings Power Value 4cAnchored PE 4dReverse DCF 4eRevenue-Based DCF 4fAnchored P/S 4gScenario Analysis 4hDividend Discount Model 4iBook Value Analysis 4jInsider Activity 4fCash Flow Quality 4gDebt Maturity Risk 4hMacro Environment 4iSector Intelligence 4jRevenue Confidence 4kSensitivity Analysis 4lSector Demand Cycle 5AI Investigation 5bThesis Evaluation 6Valuation Synthesis
computed not applicable not yet run 17 computed · 6 not applicable · 1 not yet run
Risk : Reward — if the last quarter repeats
Live · as of 2026-08-19 09:00
-0.9 : 1 recovery upside vs repeat-quarter downside
Even the bull case prices 58% below today — the ratio here measures the model-vs-market gap, not payoff odds. Another quarter like the worst recent one costs 64%.
CaseGrowthMarginFair valuevs price ($294.52)
Bull — recovery +4% 22.3% $125.00 -58%
Base — stabilizes +3% 19.4% $105.57 -64%
Bear — keeps slipping +1% 16.5% $87.67 -70%
Stress — last quarter repeats +2% 20.0% $106.85 -64%
The next quarters keep the trajectory of the worst recent matched quarter (ending 2025-09-30) — growth stays at 2.3% and margins bend by the same profit-vs-revenue ratio (×1.03). Stress is a trajectory, not a prediction — it answers "what if the ship's current heading simply continues," which history says is the case to respect.
Why this is appearing: this company files quarterly, so its recent trajectory could be measured rather than assumed — the engine matched Jun 2026, Mar 2026 against the same quarters one year earlier and found revenue +5.4% · operating income +7.3% · net income +8.8% year-over-year. That measured heading is what the stress case extends forward. Of those, the stress case extends the worst matched quarter — the one ending Sep 30, 2025 (revenue +2.3%, operating income +5.7% YoY) — not the average. Data measured through Jun 30, 2026 — this card recalculates automatically when the next quarterly filing is ingested. Companies without quarterly filings (many foreign listings) never show this card: with no measured trajectory, there is nothing honest to repeat.
Narrative Economics
The story the market is telling about this stock — the intangible X-factor (founder mythology, cult dynamics, TAM-of-imagination) that moves price beyond what cash flows alone explain. After Shiller, Narrative Economics.
No narrative profile yet for ITW — it's generated by the pipeline (market-narrative step).
AI Lens 4th lens · how AI reaches this business · 5-yr
2026-08-11
The creme is there an opportunity here? Neutral
ITW is an AI bystander with a modest AI-capex demand kicker - own it for the 80/20 cash machine, not for an AI story, and do not pay for one.
Exposure of 31 with position 57 says the honest answer: substitution risk is near zero because the monetized unit is a physical consumable, and the only real upside channel is Test and Measurement and Electronics plus Welding selling into semiconductor, datacenter and power construction demand. The genuine risk nobody prices is procurement automation attacking the price/mix rent on thousands of low-ticket niche SKUs - that is what turns the 38 bear case real, against flat industry revenue and 2.1pp of industry margin compression. Watch segment price/mix versus organic volume, and any move to monetize Instron and Miller machine data as a subscription; the first tells you if the rent is leaking, the second is free optionality the tape ignores.
57
AI Position
Mildly favorable - low exposure is itself the finding
AI reaches ITW almost entirely through its customers' capital spending and a modest internal cost lever, not through substitution of what it sells - physical consumables and spec-embedded components stay physical.
Exposure 31 Confidence 68 50 = neutral
Primary Tailwind

The Test and Measurement and Electronics segment sells inspection, test and electronics-assembly consumables into semiconductor and electronics manufacturing, while Welding consumables and Construction Products sell into power, pipe and structure work - all three are direct beneficiaries of AI-driven datacenter and grid buildout as a demand stream, not as a technology.

Primary Pressure

ITW's 80/20 pricing power on thousands of low-ticket, high-margin niche SKUs partly rests on customer inattention to small-dollar spend; AI procurement agents that automate spec matching, substitute discovery and cross-distributor price comparison attack exactly that inattention rent, and industry net margins are already down 2.1pp.

Critical Hinge

Whether AI-assisted procurement and generative part-consolidation erode ITW's price/mix contribution faster than AI-driven electronics and infrastructure capex lifts volume. Watch the price/mix line versus organic volume by segment, especially Polymers and Fluids and Construction Products.

Hard to Reproduce

Brand and part numbers written into customer engineering drawings, automotive OEM platform qualifications, welding-procedure and food-safety certifications, global plant footprint, and distributor shelf position - none of which cheap software reproduces.

Forensic fingerprint same 11 factors for every stock · 0 unfavorable · 50 neutral · 100 favorable
Underlying Need Persistence do people still need this at all? 92
Things still need to be fastened, welded, tested, sealed and cooked.
Every ITW category serves a physical need created by manufacturing, construction and food service activity; cheap intelligence changes how those activities are designed and scheduled, not whether joints, coatings and heat are required.
global industrial production trend · vehicle build rates and content per vehicle · commercial kitchen replacement cycle
relevance 58 · confidence 86
Solution Persistence will they still solve it this way? 83
The physical solution persists, though generative design can shave part counts.
Fasteners, consumables and test frames remain the answer, but AI-assisted design and simulation genuinely enables part consolidation and joint substitution (adhesive for mechanical fastener, structural design with fewer clips) in automotive and construction.
fastener content per vehicle platform · adhesive vs mechanical fastening mix · Automotive OEM organic growth vs builds
relevance 54 · confidence 78
Intelligence Commoditization does cheap AI power them or copy them? 55
Cheap AI neither powers nor copies a consumables franchise.
Software cost collapse does not touch metallurgy, extrusion or qualification cycles; the only real transmission is cheaper engineering and simulation, which helps ITW's own product development about as much as it helps low-cost rivals.
R&D productivity commentary · new product vitality index disclosure · low-cost competitor spec-approval wins
relevance 38 · confidence 72
Responsibility Transfer are they paid to take the blame? 67
Certification and liability for critical joints are part of what customers buy.
Welding procedure qualification, structural fastening approvals, NSF and food-safety compliance, and calibrated test certification mean the customer is buying documented accountability that no internal AI system will assume.
warranty and recall expense trend · certification-driven aftermarket attach · test lab accreditation scope
relevance 46 · confidence 66
Scarcity Migration do their assets get rarer or more common? 62
Physical capacity and spec position stay scarce but do not get scarcer from AI.
Plants, approvals and drawing-embedded part numbers remain hard to reproduce, and AI-era electronics and power construction raises demand for some of that capacity, but nothing in ITW's asset base becomes structurally rarer because intelligence got cheap.
capacity utilization by segment · electronics assembly consumables demand · welding consumables into power projects
relevance 64 · confidence 70
Customer DIY Preference will customers just build it themselves? 81
No customer insources solder paste or welding wire.
Internalizing ITW's categories means owning chemistry, tooling and certification for a small line item; the make-versus-buy calculus is unaffected by cheaper software.
OEM vertical integration announcements · in-house fastener programs at automakers · private-label consumables share
relevance 38 · confidence 80
AI Intermediation Position do AI agents go through them or around them? 45
Agentic procurement can route around brand preference in the distributor channel.
Much of ITW's consumable revenue flows through distributors where AI purchasing agents optimize on price and equivalent-spec substitution, weakening the habit and specification stickiness that supports premium pricing on small-ticket items.
price/mix contribution by segment · distributor private-label expansion · e-commerce and marketplace share of sales
relevance 47 · confidence 58
Data Leverage does their data make AI better? 47
Real instrumented process data, largely unexploited and siloed by design.
Instron test results and Miller welding telemetry are genuinely valuable training substrate for quality and process models, but the decentralized 84-division operating model works against pooling it into a monetizable asset.
connected equipment installed base · software or subscription revenue disclosure · cross-segment data platform investment
relevance 40 · confidence 56
AI Margin Conversion do the AI savings become profit? 58
Some SG&A and engineering leverage, on top of gains 80/20 already took.
Operating margin has already climbed to roughly 26 percent through enterprise initiatives, so incremental AI savings are thinner, and the decentralized structure slows deployment; in commoditized lines any savings are likelier competed into price.
SG&A as percent of revenue · enterprise initiative margin contribution · headcount per revenue dollar
relevance 56 · confidence 64
Revenue Unit Durability does the thing they charge for survive? 82
The monetized unit is a physical good consumed per unit of activity.
Revenue scales with builds, welds, joints and meals served rather than with seats, tokens or human labor hours, so the charging unit is structurally immune to the seat-erosion mechanism that threatens software.
consumables vs equipment revenue mix · organic volume by segment · aftermarket attach rates
relevance 70 · confidence 78
Entrant Compression how easily can newcomers copy them? 71
Cheap software does not build a plant or win a platform approval.
Entry still requires capital, metallurgy and multi-year qualification, but AI-assisted design and quality control does compress the capability gap for lower-cost Asian competitors in the more commoditized consumable and fastener lines.
share loss in commodity fasteners · import price competition commentary · new competitor platform qualifications
relevance 50 · confidence 66

AI Lens thesis

ITW is an ABNB-pattern name: the scarce assets are plants, approvals and installed equipment, and the monetized unit is a physical consumable or component consumed per unit of industrial activity, so intelligence getting cheaper does not substitute the product. AI arrives through three narrow channels - as customer demand (electronics test, welding into datacenter and power construction, semiconductor assembly materials), as an internal SG&A and engineering-productivity lever layered onto an already-harvested 80/20 program running 26 percent operating margins, and as a procurement-side threat to the price/mix rent embedded in thousands of small niche SKUs. Direction is mildly positive because the demand channel is real and the substitution channel is nearly absent; magnitude is small enough that AI should not be the deciding variable in the thesis.

Thesis breaker Two years of negative price/mix in the consumables-heavy segments while organic volume is flat would show procurement automation is eating the 80/20 rent; conversely, sustained double-digit organic growth in Test and Measurement and Electronics tied to semiconductor and datacenter customers would confirm the demand channel dominates.
What the market may be underestimating

Upside Instron materials-test and Miller welding systems sit on decades of instrumented process data at the customer's machine; a connected-equipment and quality-assurance subscription attached to installed hardware would convert a hardware franchise into recurring software revenue, and almost nothing in the current numbers assumes it.

Downside The decentralized 84-division structure that makes 80/20 work is the wrong shape for enterprise AI - fragmented data, no shared systems - so ITW may capture materially less internal AI cost benefit than centralized industrial peers, meaning consensus efficiency gains show up at competitors instead.

Outcome range spread 36

38Bear case
57Central case
74Bull case
Three headline numbers, deliberately never blended: Position (which way), Exposure (how much it matters at all), Confidence (how sure). The fingerprint asks every stock the same 11 questions so companies a sector label would lump together get told apart. Not an input to GEM/Coal or the Q/V/S lenses.
Claude Reading
Independent analyst synthesis · claude-opus-4-7 · generated 2026-08-11 00:43:02
Verdict Overvalued but not by 55% — fair value $220-240 range on 20x normalized earnings; trim/avoid at $294, revisit below $240 or on evidence of revenue re-acceleration.

The raw numbers tell a story of stagnation dressed up as quality. Revenue has been rangebound at $15.9-16.1B for four straight years (2022-2025), with 2025 essentially flat vs. 2022 in nominal terms — meaning meaningful real revenue contraction. The quarterly cadence is worse than the headline: Q1 2026 at $4.02B is below Q4 2025 ($4.09B) and below Q2 2024 ($4.03B). Net income actually *fell* from $3.49B in 2024 to $3.07B in 2025 — a 12% decline — and Q3 2024's $1.16B (29.2% margin) is clearly a one-time gain distorting comps. Strip that out and margins are running steadily at 18-20%, which is genuinely good but not expanding. FCF at $2.71B against an $83.9B market cap is a 3.2% FCF yield. This is a no-growth, high-quality cash machine — nothing more.

The synthesis verdict of $131 fair value vs. $294 price is directionally correct but the magnitude feels aggressive. A 55% haircut implies ITW should trade at roughly 15x earnings and ~11-12x EV/EBITDA — that's deep-cyclical multiples for a business earning 28.7% ROIC with best-in-class 80/20 operational discipline. Comparable quality industrials (RBC, Roper, Fastenal) trade 25-35x. A more defensible fair value is probably 20-22x normalized $11 EPS = $220-240, still implying 20-25% downside but not the 55% the DCF spits out. The narrative model's framing — "45% fundamentals, 55% story" — is more honest than the point estimate. The mature_earner classification is correct; the pre-flight "platform monopoly" framing is a stretch — ITW is a diversified industrial with pricing power, not a platform, and conflating the two is exactly the narrative inflation the bear case warns about.

The contrarian pushback: ROIC of 28.7% is extraordinary and durable — ITW has delivered this for a decade+ through the 80/20 methodology, and the market rightly pays up for capital efficiency this rare. Debt/equity of 2.78x looks scary but reflects aggressive buybacks shrinking equity, not balance sheet stress — $3.13B OCF against $8.97B debt is 2.9x coverage, fine. The 2.19% dividend with 58% payout is sustainable and growing. If you believe reshoring/electrification/infrastructure spending is real and multi-year, ITW's automotive OEM, welding, and test/measurement segments are direct beneficiaries — and none of that shows up in trailing numbers yet. That's the bull case worth taking seriously, not the "hidden champion" hyperbole. Also worth noting: the data shows a Q1 2026 print, which is either forward-looking or mislabeled — I'd want to verify before anchoring hard on it.

Where I land: I agree with the synthesis direction (overvalued) but dissent on magnitude. The disconnect between -0.2% revenue CAGR, -6.3% FCF CAGR, and a 28x P/E is not defensible — you're paying growth-stock multiples for a business that hasn't grown the top line in four years and whose FCF is shrinking. Even granting premium quality, 28x forward on flat earnings requires either (a) margin expansion beyond 20% which has stalled, or (b) a cyclical inflection that isn't visible in the data. Neither is impossible, but neither is priced with any margin of safety. Fair value in the $220-240 range (18-20% downside) is more credible than $131. This isn't a short — quality compounders can stay expensive for years and the dividend + buyback provides floor support — but it's not a place to add capital at $294. Wait for either a cyclical drawdown to $230-240 or evidence of genuine revenue re-acceleration (2+ consecutive quarters of 4%+ YoY growth). The bear risk is asymmetric: if industrial capex softens in 2026, multiple compression to 22x on down earnings gets you to $200 fast.

GPT Reading
Independent reading · gpt-5.4 · generated 2026-08-11 00:43:17
Verdict Overvalued at $294.5 — this is a superb industrial franchise, but the market is paying a compounder multiple for a flat-revenue, already-max-margin business; fair value looks closer to $220-$240.

At $294.5, ITW is being valued like a premium compounder while the actual income statement looks like a no-growth, margin-optimized industrial. Revenue was $16.04B in 2025 versus $16.11B in 2023 and $15.93B in 2022; that is basically flat for four years. Even the quarterly run-rate says the same thing: the last four quarters sum to about $16.22B, only modestly above the prior four quarters near $15.77B, and the most recent quarter grew just 4.7% y/y to $4.02B from $3.84B. Meanwhile net income is not cleanly compounding either. 2025 NI of $3.07B was down sharply from 2024’s $3.49B, and the latest quarter’s $768M was only up 9.7% y/y off a soft base. This is a very good business, but the data do not support a 28x earnings multiple, 5.4x sales, and 20.7x EV/EBITDA for a company whose medium-term growth is essentially zero.

What does support a premium is operating quality. Gross margin of 52.9%, operating margin of 26.3%, and net margin of 19.1% are exceptional for an industrial. ROIC at 28.7% is legitimately elite, and free cash flow of $2.71B on $3.07B of net income is solid conversion. The balance sheet, however, is less pristine than the quality narrative implies: $8.97B of debt against just $851M of cash and only $3.23B of equity means the optical 95% ROE is mostly leverage and buybacks crushing book value, not some magical earnings engine. Price/book of 26.7x is a uselessly high number in that context, but it does underscore that investors are paying for franchise quality rather than balance-sheet substance. If I normalize this as a mature industrial that can maybe grow EPS mid-single digits through mix, pricing, and repurchases, fair value is nowhere near $295.

The key contradiction in the bull case is that ITW has already delivered the margin excellence people usually hope for. Operating income was $4.22B in 2025 on $16.04B of sales, basically peak-quality economics already. There is little evidence left of a large self-help runway from here. In fact, 2025 operating income of $4.22B was slightly below 2024’s $4.26B despite higher revenue, and free cash flow has a negative multiyear CAGR. That matters because when a company is priced at 28x earnings without real top-line growth, the multiple itself is doing the heavy lifting. A 22x multiple on $10-11 of sustainable EPS would already be generous for this profile and gets you something like $220-$240, not $295. To justify the current price, I would want to see either sustained organic growth in the high single digits or another leg up in margins; the raw numbers show neither.

The strongest argument against my view is that ITW has earned a structural premium for a long time because it behaves unlike a typical cyclical industrial. Even with flat revenue, it has held gross margin above 52%, operating margin above 26%, and quarterly net margins mostly in the 18-20% range, with only one obvious outlier quarter at 29.2%. That consistency through a sluggish macro backdrop is exactly what premium-multiple investors pay for. A 2.2% dividend yield and 58% payout ratio also make it attractive as a quality shareholder-return vehicle, and if end markets improve even modestly, the company could convert small revenue gains into disproportionate EPS growth because the base margins are so high. In other words, if you believe ITW is less a cyclical machinery name and more a durable cash compounder with pricing power, 28x is expensive but not absurd. I weigh that less heavily because the recent data show resilience, not acceleration, and resilience alone usually does not justify nearly 6x revenue.

What would change my mind is simple: I need to see growth broad enough to prove the current multiple is buying more than stability. If the next few quarters push annualized revenue clearly above $16.8B while maintaining operating margin at or above 26% and free cash flow above $3.0B, then I would accept that ITW can grow into a premium valuation. Likewise, if net debt starts coming down materially without hurting buybacks or dividend growth, the quality case gets stronger. On the other hand, if quarterly revenue slips back below $4.0B or net margins settle closer to 18% than 20%, the stock should de-rate hard because there is no valuation cushion.

Grok Reading
Independent reading · grok-4.5 · generated 2026-08-11 00:43:45
Verdict Overvalued quality industrial at $294.52 — elite ~19% net margins and $2.7B FCF do not justify 28× P/E on flat revenue and ~2% earnings growth; fairer zone nearer $180–220

The numbers describe a superbly run industrial that has stopped growing. Annual revenue has essentially flatlined—$15.93B in 2022, $16.11B in 2023, $15.90B in 2024, $16.04B in 2025—for a revenue CAGR of −0.2%. Recent quarterly run-rate sits in a tight $3.84–4.09B band with no inflection. Net income of $3.07B in 2025 is below the $3.49B of 2024 (the prior year flattered by a $1.16B quarter that pushed margins to an unsustainable 29.2%), and earnings CAGR over the measured window is a meager 1.8% while FCF CAGR is −6.3%. What the market is paying for is not top-line expansion; it is the margin machine. Gross margin holds at 52.9%, operating margin 26.3%, net margin 19.1%, with free cash flow of $2.71B on only $419M of capex. That is elite conversion. But a 28× P/E, 20.7× EV/EBITDA, and 5.4× sales on zero organic growth is a quality premium stretched into pure multiple expansion. The $83.9B enterprise is being valued as if the 80/20 playbook can manufacture earnings growth the revenue line refuses to deliver.

Balance-sheet optics reinforce the mature-earner read rather than a compounder story. Equity has been compressed to $3.23B against $8.97B of debt, producing a cosmetic ROE of 95% and a 2.78× debt-to-equity ratio; ROIC of 28.7% is the cleaner signal and it is genuinely strong, but it is being earned on a capital base that management has deliberately shrunk via returns of capital, not on reinvestment at high incremental returns. Dividend yield of 2.2% at a 58% payout is sustainable given FCF, yet it is not a growth reinvestment story. The valuation synthesis fair value near $131–139 is harsh—implying mid-teens earnings multiples that ignore durability of the margin structure—but the direction is correct: at $294.52 the stock embeds a narrative premium that fundamentals alone cannot support. Roughly half the price is story about structural moats in automotive OEM, food equipment, and welding; the cash-flow math does not get you there.

The strongest counter-argument is that ITW has earned the right to a scarcity multiple. Operating margins in the mid-20s through a soft industrial cycle, steady quarterly revenue with “good revenue confidence,” FCF quality flagged as good, and performance above sector benchmarks all argue that the 80/20 operating system really does decouple earnings from volume. Diversification across seven segments and mission-critical switching costs can justify trading through the cycle at 22–25× rather than a deep-value industrial multiple. A bull can also note that net margins have stabilized in the 18–20% range even as the one-time 2024 spike rolled off, and that modest volume recovery plus pricing could restore low-single-digit earnings growth without heroic assumptions. I weigh this less heavily because the market is already paying ~28× for that resilience; the margin of safety is gone. Paying 28× for 0–2% growth and mid-single-digit FCF yield leaves no room for a normal industrial downturn or for multiple compression if the “compounder” label is questioned.

I would reverse to neutral or constructive only on clear evidence of a re-acceleration: sustained quarterly revenue growth above 4–5% year-over-year for two consecutive halves, operating margin holding above 27% while volume recovers, or FCF climbing back through $3B with the current capital intensity. A material debt paydown that normalizes the equity base without starving the dividend would also reduce financial-risk overhang. Absent those, the stock remains a high-quality franchise priced for perfection.

Big-3 Panel — where each AI stands
Each AI above independently stated a direction (undervalued, fairly valued, or overvalued) and how strongly it believes it (conviction, 0–5). We combine those into a Bull-Bear Index on a 0–10 scale: 5 is neutral, 10 is maximum bullish (undervalued at full conviction), 0 is maximum bearish. We compute the score ourselves with the same arithmetic for every seat — the models never grade their own bullishness — so the three are directly comparable. Δ shows how far each seat sits from the panel average of 1.3; a large Δ marks the dissenting voice, usually the one worth reading.
Claude claude-opus-4-7 2.0
overvalued · conviction 3/5 · Δ +0.7 vs panel · self: 3.0
GPT gpt-5.4 1.0
overvalued · conviction 4/5 · Δ -0.3 vs panel · self: 3.0
Grok grok-4.5 1.0
overvalued · conviction 4/5 · Δ -0.3 vs panel · self: 3.0
Advanced Analysis Forensic deep-dive · separate lenses
Separate reads — Company Quality (is it a great business?), Valuation (is it mispriced?), and General Sentiment (how macro + narrative are pushing it), plus AI Impact (how the AI wave reshapes it), kept deliberately apart · 2026-08-11 01:19:41
Delvantic - Cairn AI
Quality - wait for a dip 8/10
Fortress-quality compounder priced for perfection at $294 - great business, wrong price, so I wait.
The cruxWhether ITW can re-accelerate revenue off the $16B plateau before the multiple compresses; without top-line growth, $294 is underwriting buyback math plus multiple persistence.
Forensic checks Derived mechanically from ITW's filed financials — not from the AI lenses
Liquidity & RunwaySelf-Funding
DilutionShare Count Shrinking
Earnings QualityGood Earnings Quality
The four lensesswitch a tab for its full read — score + evidence
Company Quality
+76
Fortress
edge √Σ 141 · risk √Σ 43 · conf 8/10

ITW shows the hallmarks of a high-quality mature earner. Gross margin has climbed from 48.9% (2022) to 52.9% (2025) and operating margin from 23.8% to 26.3%, indicating real operating leverage and pricing power on a roughly flat revenue base of about $16B. Net income of $3.07B in 2025 converts cleanly to $2.71B of FCF (OCF/NI 0.98x, accruals just 0.5% of assets), and the mechanical integrity checks - Beneish M at -2.44 and Altman Z at 8.44 - are firmly in the safe zone. Capital allocation is disciplined: diluted shares fell from 316.4M to 292.3M (about -2% CAGR), SBC is a trivial 0.4% of revenue, and buybacks run 23x SBC, so per-share value is being concentrated. The only friction is balance-sheet posture: net debt of about $8.1B against $851M cash, and short-term debt of $2.29B exceeds liquid cash - a refinancing touchpoint, not a solvency issue given $2.7B annual FCF and Z of 8.44. Overall this reads as a durable, well-run industrial compounder rather than a growth story.

Strengths 4
m78
Sustained margin expansion
Gross margin 48.9% to 52.9% and operating margin 23.8% to 26.8% (2022-2024) on flat revenue signals genuine pricing power and cost discipline typical of ITW's 80/20 model.
m72
Share count shrinking meaningfully
Diluted shares down from 316.4M to 292.3M (-2%/yr) with buybacks 23x SBC and SBC only 0.4% of revenue - per-share value is being concentrated.
m70
Clean earnings quality
OCF/NI 0.98x, accruals 0.5% of assets, Beneish M -2.44, Altman Z 8.44 - no mechanical red flags; reported earnings are backed by cash.
m62
Reliable FCF machine
FCF of $2.26B/$1.94B/$3.08B/$2.84B/$2.71B across 2021-2025 - consistent multi-billion cash generation that self-funds capex, dividends and buybacks.
Concerns 3
m32
Net debt and near-term maturities
Net debt about $8.1B with only $851M liquid cash; $2.29B short-term debt exceeds cash - manageable given $2.7B FCF and Z of 8.44, but the balance sheet is a constraint not a cushion.
m22
Revenue essentially flat
Revenue $15.93B (2022) to $16.04B (2025) - earnings growth is being driven by margin and share count, not top-line expansion, which limits the compounding ceiling.
m18
2025 net income dip
Net income fell from $3.49B (2024) to $3.07B (2025) despite stable margins - worth watching whether this reflects one-timers or softening demand.
This is a high-quality industrial compounder doing exactly what it is supposed to do: hold revenue steady while pushing margins from the mid-20s toward the high-20s, convert nearly all earnings to cash, and steadily retire shares. Earnings quality checks are clean and I see no fingerprints of manipulation. The knocks are honest ones - the top line has stalled around $16B, 2025 net income slipped, and the balance sheet carries real leverage with short-term debt above cash. Those keep it out of the 92+ 'nothing soft' tier, but the business itself is clearly fortress-grade.
Verify before trusting this (5)
  • Cause of 2025 net income decline from $3.49B to $3.07B despite stable margins - one-time charges, tax, or organic softening?
  • Composition and maturity schedule of the $2.29B short-term debt and refinancing plans
  • Segment-level organic growth vs. price/mix to confirm margin gains are structural (80/20) not transitory
  • Insider transaction pattern and any large 10b5-1 program details
  • Pension, environmental, or contingent liabilities not visible in the summary metrics
Valuation / Mispricing
-65
Rich
edge √Σ 30 · risk √Σ 107 · conf 7/10
Price $294.52 vs deserved ~$190-220 for a Fortress-quality compounder; ~30-35% above what I would call fair, no margin of safety. attractive below $210.00

The composite fair value sits at $138.65 and the signal-adjusted at $131.47, implying roughly -55% downside from $294.52. Even the most generous input, an anchored-PE of $192.12, still says the stock is ~35% rich. DCF ($125.67) and EPV floor ($111.14) corroborate that the cash-flow math does not support the tape. I discount the raw -55% headline because ITW is a genuine compounder (Fortress, quality 76) with clean earnings and steady buybacks, which deserves a premium multiple - but a premium is not a blank check.

Cheap signals 1
m30
Fortress quality deserves a premium
Clean earnings, ~100% FCF conversion, shrinking share count and margin expansion justify paying above raw DCF - but not 2x it.
Rich / priced-in 4
m70
Every FV method below price
DCF $125.67, EPV $111.14, anchored-PE $192.12, composite $138.65 - the highest-quality input still leaves ~35% downside from $294.52.
m55
Flat revenue, premium multiple
Top line stuck around $16B and 2025 net income down, yet the stock carries a compounding-growth multiple; EPS growth is largely buyback-manufactured.
m45
Cyclical exposure ignored
Auto, welding, and food-equipment end-markets are cyclical; the current price bakes in no recession scenario despite mature-cycle signals.
m40
DCF-to-price gap is the tell
A 2.2x price/DCF ratio on a slow-growth industrial is the hallmark of multiple expansion, not earnings power.
I like the business, I do not like the price. Three of four valuation methods say fair value is under $200, and the most generous still sits ~35% below the tape. Paying $294.52 for ~$16B of flat revenue is underwriting years of flawless execution plus multiple persistence - that is not a bet with a margin of safety, that is a bet on momentum. I would want ITW closer to $210 before the quality-adjusted math starts working; anywhere in the $180s and I get interested.
Verify before trusting this (4)
  • 2026 organic revenue guidance and whether management sees end-market inflection
  • segment-level margin trajectory - is the high-20s target sustainable or peaking
  • buyback pace vs FCF - is the EPS engine still self-funding
  • any one-time items flattering 2024-2025 operating margin
General Sentiment
+8
Balanced
tail √Σ 65 · head √Σ 57 · conf 6/10

ITW sits in an oddly calm pocket of the tape. The regime is modestly risk-on (score +47, VIX 15.5, index near highs), and with beta at 1.01 the macro backdrop is a mild tailwind rather than a torque. The active narrative is a 'platform-monopoly' story with strong intensity but only moderate durability and low cult - meaning the market believes ITW is a structurally advantaged multi-segment compounder, but this is not a mania name that trades on story alone. That combination gives the stock a steady bid without a euphoric one. On the other side, 10y at 4.65% and a market PE of 26 create a persistent quiet drag on any name where the multiple is doing the heavy lifting, and the narrative itself concedes that price sits well above steady-state fundamentals - so any crack in the 'indispensable industrial' framing would land hard. Momentum is positive but shallow (roughly flat CAGR with low volatility), consistent with a name being held rather than chased. Net: the non-fundamental forces are close to offsetting, with a slight tailwind bias from regime and narrative durability, checked by rate/valuation sensitivity.

Tailwinds 3
m40
Risk-on tape, market-beta name
Regime score +47 with VIX 15.5 and indices near highs is a mild positive for a beta-1.0 industrial; ITW gets the ambient bid but not leveraged juice.
m45
Durable 'platform-monopoly' framing
Strong-intensity narrative around embedded, mission-critical segments with high switching costs gives the multiple a floor and keeps sellers patient, even if cult factor is low.
m25
Low-vol grind, no distribution
Positive momentum with low revenue-growth volatility keeps ITW in the 'own-and-hold' bucket; there is no visible tape pressure forcing holders out.
Headwinds 2
m45
Rate/valuation backdrop presses multiple-driven names
10y at 4.65% and market PE 26 create a slow drag on stocks whose price is sustained by narrative premium rather than earnings acceleration - exactly ITW's setup.
m35
Story fragility if cycle wobbles
Narrative durability is only moderate; any macro softening would reframe ITW from 'hidden champion' to 'diversified cyclical', and that re-rating risk is a latent overhang.
My read is that non-fundamental pressure on ITW is close to a wash with a faint tailwind. The tape is friendly and the narrative is respected but not hyped, which is the sweet spot for a boring quality name to drift higher. The real vulnerability is not sentiment today but sentiment tomorrow: the story concedes the price is a premium bet on structural advantage, and in a 4.65% rate world any narrative crack or cyclical scare will find a lot of air under the stock. For now, Balanced with a light lean to Tailwind - I would not fade it here, but I would not lean on sentiment as a reason to press it either.
Verify before trusting this (4)
  • Any analyst downgrade or target cut that reframes ITW as a legacy cyclical rather than a platform compounder
  • Sector rotation out of quality industrials into higher-beta cyclicals or AI names, which would leave ITW as a source of funds
  • Move in 10y yields above 4.75-5.0%, which historically compresses premium industrial multiples
  • PMI/ISM trajectory - a rollover would test the durability of the narrative premium
The market-wide tape + this name's exposure to it (beta / sector / narrative durability). Context on the non-fundamental pressure — not a call on the business or the price. processId: detail-general-sentiment
AI Impact
+38
Mildly favorable - low exposure is itself the finding
opp √Σ 85 · thr √Σ 0 · conf 7/10

ITW is an ABNB-pattern name: the scarce assets are plants, approvals and installed equipment, and the monetized unit is a physical consumable or component consumed per unit of industrial activity, so intelligence getting cheaper does not substitute the product. AI arrives through three narrow channels - as customer demand (electronics test, welding into datacenter and power construction, semiconductor assembly materials), as an internal SG&A and engineering-productivity lever layered onto an already-harvested 80/20 program running 26 percent operating margins, and as a procurement-side threat to the price/mix rent embedded in thousands of small niche SKUs. Direction is mildly positive because the demand channel is real and the substitution channel is nearly absent; magnitude is small enough that AI should not be the deciding variable in the thesis.

AI opportunities 7
m49
Underlying Need Persistence
Things still need to be fastened, welded, tested, sealed and cooked.
m36
Solution Persistence
The physical solution persists, though generative design can shave part counts.
m16
Responsibility Transfer
Certification and liability for critical joints are part of what customers buy.
m15
Scarcity Migration
Physical capacity and spec position stay scarce but do not get scarcer from AI.
m24
Customer DIY Preference
No customer insources solder paste or welding wire.
m45
Revenue Unit Durability
The monetized unit is a physical good consumed per unit of activity.
m21
Entrant Compression
Cheap software does not build a plant or win a platform approval.
AI threats 0

None surfaced.

ITW is an AI bystander with a modest AI-capex demand kicker - own it for the 80/20 cash machine, not for an AI story, and do not pay for one. Exposure of 31 with position 57 says the honest answer: substitution risk is near zero because the monetized unit is a physical consumable, and the only real upside channel is Test and Measurement and Electronics plus Welding selling into semiconductor, datacenter and power construction demand. The genuine risk nobody prices is procurement automation attacking the price/mix rent on thousands of low-ticket niche SKUs - that is what turns the 38 bear case real, against flat industry revenue and 2.1pp of industry margin compression. Watch segment price/mix versus organic volume, and any move to monetize Instron and Miller machine data as a subscription; the first tells you if the rent is leaking, the second is free optionality the tape ignores.
Verify before trusting this (8)
  • consumables vs equipment revenue mix
  • organic volume by segment
  • aftermarket attach rates
  • capacity utilization by segment
  • electronics assembly consumables demand
  • welding consumables into power projects
  • global industrial production trend
  • vehicle build rates and content per vehicle
The structural effect of the AI wave on this specific business over the next ~5 years — demand, cost leverage, moat, barriers to entry, position in the AI stack. The reality beneath the AI story, not the story's market pressure (General Sentiment owns that) — and not a call on the business today or the price.
Growth Outlook
not run

This lens hasn't been run for this ticker yet.

The forward growth verdict — is the business itself likely to grow (next 2 quarters / year 1 / years 2–3), judged against its category and against printed expectations. The full horizon ladder + creme renders on the Growth Outlook card above. Not a call on the price (Valuation owns that) or the tape (Sentiment owns that).
Please log in to view trade setups
The Augustus trade-setup read is a members feature.
Log in
Lenses kept deliberately separate — Company Quality (price-agnostic), Valuation (price-conditional), General Sentiment (non-fundamental macro/narrative pressure), AI Impact (structural ~5yr AI exposure), and Growth Outlook (the forward growth verdict). The scores are not blended. Filing-level items (convertibles, lock-ups, customer concentration) are v2 — see each lens's "verify."
Price Prediction
Lower -8.3% v0.6.0 View full prediction →

When we made this prediction on Aug 11, 2026, ITW was $294.52. We expect it to be $270.00 by Feb 2027, and we consider it great value under $210.00. This is an early model (v0.6.0) — the direction is more reliable than the exact price. Made Aug 11, 2026.

Price when predicted$294.52
Our estimate for Feb 2027$270.00-8.3%
Great value below$210.00
Price history shown (6 Months)

Blue is our prediction, starting the day we made it. Grey is a slower route to the same place — the same destination, taking longer. Black is the actual price, so you can see how we are doing.

Community AI Feedback
No community reviews yet for ITW. Be the first — hit How to Contribute, have any AI review this page, and paste its take back here.
My Notes personal — only you see this
v1.1.562 · 9b2927c4 · 2026-08-22 16:52:06