GWW — W.W. Grainger, Inc.
W.W. Grainger, Inc. stands as a significant global supplier of maintenance, repair, and operating (MRO) supplies and related services.
Price chart & technical analysis
Loading chart…
As of 2026-09-13, GWW trades at $1,280 with a 32.6x trailing P/E — distorted upward by a one-off Q3 2025 charge — and roughly 27.5x forward earnings on the $46.51 next-FY EPS estimate. The stock sits 1.99% below its 20-day SMA and 4.03% below its 50-day SMA but 8.06% above its 200-day SMA, with Q2 2026 revenue up 10.3% YoY and EPS up 20.5% (though ~$0.69 of that EPS came from a one-off tariff refund).
The market is genuinely split. On 2026-08-04 Grainger beat on both lines (Q2 2026 EPS $12.01 vs. ~$11.27-11.30 consensus) and raised full-year guidance to $19.4-19.7B sales and $45.50-47.25 adjusted EPS, yet the shares still fell more than 7% on the print. The reason is quality-of-earnings: $43M of pre-tax IEEPA tariff refunds added ~90bps to gross margin and ~$0.685 to EPS, and guidance implies H2 2026 operating margin of ~15.6% versus the 16.4% delivered in H1 — i.e., deceleration. Wall Street reflects that skepticism: consensus is a Hold (0 strong buy / 9 buy / 26 hold / 4 sell), with an average target near $1,312-1,320 versus a $1,280 price — only single-digit upside. Recent price action is soft (1-week -3.36%, 1-month -1.91%, 3-month -2.73%) even after a strong 6-month run (+19.19%), so neither bulls nor bears clearly own the tape.
The top line is genuinely accelerating, not stalling. YoY revenue growth ran +1.7% (Q1 2025), +5.6% (Q2 2025), +6.1% (Q3 2025), +4.5% (Q4 2025), then jumped to +10.1% (Q1 2026) and +10.3% (Q2 2026), with Q2 described as +13.7% organic constant-currency daily. Operating margin expanded from 15.6% (Q1 2025) and 14.9% (Q2 2025) to 16.7% (Q1 2026) and 16.1% (Q2 2026). The glaring anomaly is Q3 2025: EPS collapsed to $6.09 from $9.94 a year earlier and operating income fell to $511M from $686M — that is a one-off operating charge, not a structural break, and it is what drags trailing EPS down to $39.54 and inflates the TTM P/E to 32.6x. The genuine caveat is that Q2 2026's $12.01 EPS and 39.5% gross margin are flattered by the tariff refund (normalized EPS ≈ $11.33), and management's own H2 guide implies margin cooling to ~15.6%. Read: real acceleration in demand, partially inflated reported profitability, with a deceleration widely expected in the back half.
Expensive relative to its own history, and not obviously cheap on absolute terms. The headline TTM P/E of 32.62 is misleading because of the Q3 2025 charge — on the $46.51 next-FY EPS estimate the forward P/E is ~27.5x, which is still roughly a 13% premium to the 5-year average P/E of 24.43x. P/S tells the same story: 3.207x versus a 5-year average of 2.43x, about a 32% premium. EV/EBITDA is 21.2x, P/B is 14.66x (flattered by buyback-shrunken equity), and the 0.73% dividend yield offers almost no income support. The deterministic score's own overlay flags this explicitly — valuation context label: 'Rich vs. its own history' (reference score 9.1). The PEG ratio of -34.01 is an artifact of the trailing charge and should be ignored. Bottom line: you are paying a premium multiple for a business that is executing well but whose margin expansion is decelerating and partly tariff-assisted.
At $1,280 on 2026-09-13, the market is paying ~27.5x forward EPS for a company guiding to 10%ish sales growth and a step-down in second-half margin. That price embeds continued double-digit revenue growth, durable mid-16% operating margins, and successful Endless Assortment (Zoro/MonotaRO) margin expansion — but the guidance math says H2 margin lands closer to 15.6%. The stock's 7% drop on a beat-and-raise is the tell: investors are no longer willing to pay up for earnings that look better than the underlying run-rate, and they are discounting the tariff refund as non-recurring. If H2 organic daily sales hold near the Q2 pace and margins land at/above the implied ~15.6%, the multiple can hold; if either slips, there is little valuation cushion. This is a 'show-me' setup, not a case of the market underpricing an unrecognized turnaround.
As of 2026-09-13, RSI stood at 42.3 — neutral, leaning soft, and nowhere near oversold. The stock was 1.99% below its 20-day SMA and 4.03% below its 50-day SMA (short-term downtrend) while still 8.06% above its 200-day SMA (longer-term uptrend intact). The previous close was $1,271.49, and the trailing returns show the tension clearly: +19.19% over six months but -2.73% over three months and -3.36% over one week. That pattern — a strong multi-month advance now digesting through a shallow pullback — reads as range-bound consolidation rather than a breakdown or a buyable capitulation. Entry-timing implication: there is no oversold snapback setup here; a push back toward the 200-day SMA would be the more attractive add point, and a decisive break below it would signal the re-rating is unwinding.
- Industrial demand backdrop: as a dominant MRO distributor, GWW is a proxy for manufacturing and non-residential activity; uneven PMI/capex conditions would directly pressure organic daily sales growth.
- Trade policy and tariffs: the Q2 2026 IEEPA tariff refund (+$43M pre-tax) cut both ways — it flattered margins this quarter, and any reversal or new tariff action reintroduces non-operating noise into gross margin.
- Interest rates: elevated rates dampen heavy capital expenditure and industrial expansion, though Grainger's sticky, recurring-demand MRO model is less cyclical than capital goods peers.
- Sector rotation: high-multiple quality industrials are vulnerable to rotation if growth or rate expectations shift, and GWW's 3.21x P/S versus 2.43x 5-year average leaves it exposed to de-rating.
- Input cost inflation: wage and transportation overhead require continuous price-cost management; the 39.5% gross margin is only ~100bps above where it sat in year-ago quarters before the tariff boost.
- Q3 2026 earnings on 2026-11-04 — the key test of whether organic daily sales growth holds near the Q2 pace and whether Endless Assortment margin expansion is durable; also the first clean read without the Q3 2025 charge in the comparison base.
- Second-half 2026 margin trajectory versus the ~15.6% implied by guidance — landing at or above it would validate the multiple; missing it invites further de-rating.
- Continued share gains in digital/Zoro and MonotaRO, which management has cited as the engine behind the acceleration to double-digit revenue growth.
- Capital return: buybacks (which have already shrunk equity to $4.13B and flattered ROE to 45.7%) and dividend increases remain modest but steady supports.
- Valuation compression: at ~27.5x forward earnings and a 32% P/S premium to its own 5-year average, GWW has little cushion — a modest multiple reset toward the 24.4x historical average implies a fair value near $1,135, roughly 11% below the 2026-09-13 price.
- Margin normalization: H2 2026 guidance already implies operating margin falling to ~15.6% from 16.4% in H1, and the Q2 beat was tariff-assisted; if core margin power is lower than the market assumes, earnings quality deteriorates.
- Industrial cyclicality: a manufacturing or non-residential construction slowdown would hit organic daily sales growth, which is the metric the market is currently rewarding.
- Earnings-quality optics: an accruals ratio of +1.31% (net income running slightly ahead of operating cash flow) and a quarter boosted by a one-off tariff refund give bears legitimate ammunition.
- Competitive pressure: Amazon Business and other digital distributors continue to pressure pricing and share in the lower-touch assortment, particularly for Zoro.
Grainger is a genuinely high-quality business — 27.7% ROIC, 45.7% ROE, a 2.8x current ratio, ~$1.5B in trailing free cash flow, and revenue growth that has genuinely accelerated from ~2% to ~10% YoY. But the stock at $1,280 on 2026-09-13 already reflects that quality at ~27.5x forward earnings and a P/S 32% above its own 5-year average, while the guidance math points to decelerating second-half margins and the latest quarter leaned on a one-off tariff refund. My calculated fair value of ~$1,210 sits modestly below the current price, so this is a business I want to own on weakness, not chase here — a good company with a full price, where the risk/reward is roughly balanced but skewed slightly negative on the multiple.
Justified forward P/E method: I applied a 26.0x multiple to the next-FY EPS estimate of $46.51, giving $1,209 (rounded to $1,210). The 26.0x is a deliberate middle ground — a modest premium to GWW's 5-year average P/E of 24.43x to reflect its 27.7% ROIC and exceptional consistency, but below the ~27.5x forward multiple the stock currently carries at $1,280, because the Q2 2026 beat was tariff-assisted and management's own guidance implies H2 operating margin decelerating to ~15.6% from 16.4% in H1. Cross-checking with a ~18x EV/EBITDA on forward EBITDA of roughly $3.35B produces a similar $1,220-1,240 area, and a 3%-ish FCF yield on ~$1.5B trailing free cash flow actually skews lower — so $1,210 is, if anything, the generous end of my own work. This sits below both the analyst consensus target (~$1,312-1,320) and the 2026-09-13 price of $1,280.
The deterministic score of 62.0 ('Good Fundamentals') is a fair read, and my independent analysis lands within roughly 5 points of it — not enough to move the label. The formula is entirely backward-looking, which cuts both ways here: it under-credits the real acceleration in YoY revenue (from +1.7% in Q1 2025 to +10.3% in Q2 2026) and the 27.7% ROIC/45.7% ROE quality, but it is not wrong to keep growth (54.2) and quality (51.4) only mid-range, because the Q3 2025 one-off charge distorts trailing margins, the Q2 2026 beat was tariff-assisted, and H2 guidance implies margin cooling. Notably the score's accruals ratio of +1.31% is small and not a red flag, so the quality leg is not being unfairly punished there. The excluded valuation overlay ('Rich vs. its own history', 9.1) is the single biggest thing the formula sets aside, and it is precisely why I would not rate the business above Good despite the execution. If anything I would nudge the score up a point or two for the demonstrated pricing power and balance-sheet strength, but nothing in the data justifies a two-tier move. There is no single, dated, material event of the kind that warrants deviating from the mandated lean mapping (the tariff refund is a normal, already-trailing cost item, not an acquisition, restatement, or fraud).
AI-generated analysis for informational purposes only, not financial advice.