Braemar Hotels & Resorts vs Chatham Lodging Trust
BHR and CLDT side by side, both in miscellaneous investing. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BHR and CLDT compare
Chatham Lodging Trust is the larger company, worth 7.7 times as much as Braemar Hotels & Resorts ($687M against $89.3M).
Chatham Lodging Trust grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (−3.1% versus −3.8% for Braemar Hotels & Resorts).
Chatham Lodging Trust keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 4.0% compared with −0.45% at Braemar Hotels & Resorts.
Both pay dividends: Braemar Hotels & Resorts yields 3.8% and Chatham Lodging Trust 2.6%.
Braemar Hotels & Resorts scores higher on the StockData Score (7 against 6 for Chatham Lodging 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 | BHR | CLDT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $89.3M | $687M |
| Share price | $1.30 | $14.75 |
| Change, 1 year | −48.8% | 129% |
| Change, 5 years | −77.0% | 6.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.05 | 1.03 |
| Employees | 82 | 16 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend score | 1 | 1 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 184× |
| P/S | 0.1× (better) | 2.3× |
| P/B | 0.6× (better) | 1.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | −0.0× | 7.3× (better) |
| PEG | – | 3.56 |
| Fair value | $13.55 | $15.56 |
| Margin of safety | 90.4% (better) | 5.2% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −3.8% | −3.1% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 25.4% (better) | 15.3% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 27.5% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 167% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 30.6% | – |
| Operating margin | 12.8% (better) | 12.5% |
| Net margin | −0.45% | 4.0% (better) |
| Return on equity | −1.7% | 1.6% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 70.2% (better) | 5.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Interest coverage | 1.0× | 1.5× (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 0.16 | 0.87 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 3.8% (better) | 2.6% |
| Payout ratio | – | 156% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 10.4% |
| Buyback yield | – | 2.7% |
| Shareholder yield | 3.8% | 5.3% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 48.7% | 95.3% |
| Held by insiders | 42.5% | 2.9% |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.7% | 2.9% |
Go deeper
- BHR stock overview
- BHR income statement
- BHR valuation and score
- CLDT stock overview
- CLDT income statement
- CLDT valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.