Braemar Hotels & Resorts vs Chatham Lodging Trust
BHR.PD 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 BHR.PD and CLDT.PA compare
Braemar Hotels & Resorts is the larger company, worth 1.3 times as much as Chatham Lodging Trust ($1.1B against $891M).
Chatham Lodging Trust grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (3.8% versus −9.1% for Braemar Hotels & Resorts).
Chatham Lodging Trust keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 5.0% compared with −37.4% at Braemar Hotels & Resorts.
Both pay dividends: Braemar Hotels & Resorts yields 12.6% and Chatham Lodging Trust 8.7%.
Chatham Lodging Trust scores higher on the StockData Score (8 against 5 for Braemar Hotels & Resorts), 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.PD | CLDT.PA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.1B | $891M |
| Share price | $16.41 | $19.14 |
| Change, 1 year | −21.3% | −4.2% |
| Change, 5 years | −37.9% | −25.9% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.28 | 0.49 |
| Employees | 82 | 16 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 5 | 8 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 2 |
| Growth score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Health score | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 120× |
| P/S | 1.7× (better) | 2.8× |
| P/B | – | 1.2× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 8.9× |
| PEG | – | 2.31 |
| Fair value | $18.91 | $21.68 |
| Margin of safety | 13.2% (better) | 11.7% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −9.1% | 3.8% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 25.4% (better) | 15.3% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 80.6% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 1500% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 30.3% | – |
| Operating margin | −28.7% | 13.4% (better) |
| Net margin | −37.4% | 5.0% (better) |
| Return on equity | −455% | 2.1% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | – | 5.8% |
| Financial health | ||
| Interest coverage | −2.3× | 1.6× (better) |
| Altman Z-score | −0.24 | 1.16 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 12.6% (better) | 8.7% |
| Payout ratio | – | 121% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 10.4% |
| Buyback yield | – | 1.8% |
| Shareholder yield | 12.6% (better) | 10.5% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 48.7% | 95.3% |
| Held by insiders | 42.5% | 2.9% |
Go deeper
- BHR.PD stock overview
- BHR.PD income statement
- BHR.PD 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.