Ashford Hospitality Trust vs Chatham Lodging Trust
AHT and CLDT.PA side by side, both in miscellaneous investing. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How AHT and CLDT.PA compare
Chatham Lodging Trust is the larger company, worth 58 times as much as Ashford Hospitality Trust ($891M against $15.3M).
Chatham Lodging Trust grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (3.8% versus −5.8% for Ashford Hospitality Trust).
Chatham Lodging Trust keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 5.0% compared with −6.1% at Ashford Hospitality Trust.
Chatham Lodging Trust pays a dividend yielding 8.7%; Ashford Hospitality Trust does not pay one.
Chatham Lodging Trust scores higher on the StockData Score (8 against 3 for Ashford Hospitality Trust), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | AHT | CLDT.PA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $15.3M | $891M |
| Share price | $2.37 | $19.14 |
| Change, 1 year | −48.0% | −4.2% |
| Change, 5 years | −98.2% | −25.9% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.52 | 0.49 |
| Employees | 82 | 16 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 3 | 8 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 1 |
| Health score | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 120× |
| P/S | 0.0× (better) | 2.8× |
| P/B | – | 1.2× |
| EV/EBITDA | −0.1× | 8.9× (better) |
| PEG | – | 2.31 |
| Fair value | – | $21.68 |
| Margin of safety | – | 11.7% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −5.8% | 3.8% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 16.8% (better) | 15.3% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 80.6% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 1500% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 30.7% | – |
| Operating margin | 20.2% (better) | 13.4% |
| Net margin | −6.1% | 5.0% (better) |
| Return on equity | – | 2.1% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 5.8% |
| Financial health | ||
| Interest coverage | 0.9× | 1.6× (better) |
| Altman Z-score | −1.02 | 1.16 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 8.7% |
| Payout ratio | – | 121% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 1 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 10.4% |
| Buyback yield | 0.27% | 1.8% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 0.27% | 10.5% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 24.9% | 95.3% |
| Held by insiders | 0.87% | 2.9% |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.4% | – |
Go deeper
- AHT stock overview
- AHT income statement
- AHT valuation and score
- CLDT.PA stock overview
- CLDT.PA income statement
- CLDT.PA valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.