Caleres vs Wolverine World Wide
CAL and WWW side by side, both in consumer discretionary. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CAL and WWW compare
Wolverine World Wide is the larger company, worth 3.7 times as much as Caleres ($1.7B against $465M).
On earnings, Caleres is cheaper: it trades at 9.1× trailing earnings, against 16.3× for Wolverine World Wide.
Caleres grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (7.3% versus 7.2% for Wolverine World Wide).
Wolverine World Wide keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 5.5% compared with 1.8% at Caleres.
Both pay dividends: Caleres yields 2.1% and Wolverine World Wide 1.9%.
Caleres scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 16 for Wolverine World Wide), 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 | CAL | WWW |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $465M | $1.7B |
| Share price | $13.49 | $20.80 |
| Change, 1 year | 14.3% | −10.7% |
| Change, 5 years | −49.3% | −44.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.19 | 1.33 |
| Employees | 10K | – |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 18 (better) | 16 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Dividend score | 4 | 4 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 9.1× (better) | 16.3× |
| P/S | 0.2× (better) | 0.9× |
| P/B | 0.7× (better) | 3.8× |
| EV/EBITDA | 4.9× (better) | 10.9× |
| P/FCF | 6.9× (better) | 9.8× |
| FCF yield | 14.5% (better) | 10.3% |
| Fair value | $23.13 | $20.18 |
| Margin of safety | 41.7% (better) | −3.1% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 7.3% (better) | 7.2% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 5.4% (better) | 0.91% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −12.4% | 27.1% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −14.9% | 24.3% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 46.2% | 47.1% (better) |
| Operating margin | 3.1% | 8.7% (better) |
| Net margin | 1.8% | 5.5% (better) |
| FCF margin | 2.4% | 9.0% (better) |
| Return on equity | 8.2% | 27.1% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 11.7% | 16.8% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 1.22 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 2.01 |
| Current ratio | 1.11 | 1.55 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.04 | 3.26 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.1% (better) | 1.9% |
| Payout ratio | 18.0% | 31.0% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Buyback yield | 1.2% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 3.3% (better) | 1.9% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 86.5% | 103% |
| Held by insiders | 5.1% | 1.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$168K (better) | −$763K |
| Short interest, % of float | 12.3% | 7.4% |
Go deeper
- CAL stock overview
- CAL income statement
- CAL valuation and score
- WWW stock overview
- WWW income statement
- WWW valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.