AptarGroup vs Newell Brands
ATR and NWL side by side, both in miscellaneous plastics products. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How ATR and NWL compare
AptarGroup is the larger company, worth 4.0 times as much as Newell Brands ($8.7B against $2.2B).
AptarGroup grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (9.0% versus 0.79% for Newell Brands).
AptarGroup keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 6.7% compared with −4.4% at Newell Brands.
Both pay dividends: AptarGroup yields 1.0% and Newell Brands 5.4%.
AptarGroup scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 9 for Newell Brands), 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 | ATR | NWL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $8.7B | $2.2B |
| Share price | $137.20 | $5.18 |
| Change, 1 year | 10.4% | 5.1% |
| Change, 5 years | 4.3% | −78.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.71 | 1.20 |
| Employees | 14K | 22K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 (better) | 9 |
| Valuation score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 33.3× | – |
| P/S | 2.2× | 0.3× (better) |
| P/B | 3.3× | 0.9× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 12.7× (better) | 17.3× |
| P/FCF | 29.6× (better) | 41.6× |
| PEG | 1.86 | – |
| FCF yield | 3.4% (better) | 2.4% |
| Fair value | $128.41 | $5.84 |
| Margin of safety | −6.8% | 11.2% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 9.0% (better) | 0.79% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 5.2% (better) | −5.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −36.3% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −34.0% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 12.9% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 35.8% (better) | 35.6% |
| Operating margin | 11.9% (better) | 0.98% |
| Net margin | 6.7% (better) | −4.4% |
| FCF margin | 7.4% (better) | 0.72% |
| Return on equity | 9.9% (better) | −12.8% |
| Return on invested capital | 9.4% (better) | 0.81% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.53 (better) | 2.05 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.49 (better) | 11.58 |
| Interest coverage | 7.2× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.50 (better) | 1.27 |
| Altman Z-score | 4.10 (better) | 0.51 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.0% | 5.4% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 46.2% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 6 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 4.9% (better) | −21.2% |
| Buyback yield | 4.1% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 5.1% | 5.4% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 96.3% | 105% |
| Held by insiders | 0.78% | 1.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$7.8M | −$1.9M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.3% | 10.1% |
Go deeper
- ATR stock overview
- ATR income statement
- ATR valuation and score
- NWL stock overview
- NWL income statement
- NWL valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.