Avery Dennison vs Kimberly Clark
AVY and KMB side by side, both in paper and allied products. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How AVY and KMB compare
Kimberly Clark is the larger company, worth 2.6 times as much as Avery Dennison ($35.9B against $13.8B).
On earnings, Kimberly Clark is cheaper: it trades at 18.4× trailing earnings, against 20.0× for Avery Dennison.
Avery Dennison grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.8% versus 0.71% for Kimberly Clark).
Kimberly Clark keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 11.8% compared with 7.6% at Avery Dennison.
Both pay dividends: Avery Dennison yields 2.1% and Kimberly Clark 4.7%.
Kimberly Clark scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 14 for Avery Dennison), 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 | AVY | KMB |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $13.8B | $35.9B |
| Share price | $182.22 | $107.94 |
| Change, 1 year | 3.4% | −7.5% |
| Change, 5 years | −19.5% | −18.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.76 | 0.33 |
| Employees | 25K | 36K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 | 19 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 20.0× | 18.4× (better) |
| P/S | 1.5× (better) | 2.2× |
| P/B | 5.9× (better) | 20.5× |
| EV/EBITDA | 11.9× (better) | 12.8× |
| P/FCF | 13.0× (better) | 19.7× |
| PEG | – | 9.18 |
| FCF yield | 7.7% (better) | 5.1% |
| Fair value | $147.11 | $109.03 |
| Margin of safety | −23.9% | 1.0% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.8% (better) | 0.71% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.9% (better) | −3.0% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −0.86% (better) | −19.5% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 2.4% (better) | −19.0% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 5.9% (better) | −2.4% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 29.0% | 36.8% (better) |
| Operating margin | – | 15.2% |
| Net margin | 7.6% | 11.8% (better) |
| FCF margin | 11.5% (better) | 11.0% |
| Return on equity | 31.2% | 129% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | – | 22.3% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.58 (better) | 3.72 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.38 | 1.72 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 10.7× |
| Current ratio | 1.13 (better) | 0.91 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.15 | 3.33 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.1% | 4.7% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 41.7% | 85.9% |
| Years of dividend growth | 15 (better) | 6 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 9.4% (better) | 3.3% |
| Buyback yield | 3.0% (better) | 0.06% |
| Shareholder yield | 5.1% (better) | 4.8% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 98.3% | 96.9% |
| Held by insiders | 0.63% | 0.22% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$21.2M | $33.8K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.6% | 16.0% |
Go deeper
- AVY stock overview
- AVY income statement
- AVY valuation and score
- KMB stock overview
- KMB income statement
- KMB valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.