Cabot vs Eastman Chemical
CBT and EMN side by side, both in chemicals and allied products. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CBT and EMN compare
Eastman Chemical is the larger company, worth 2.0 times as much as Cabot ($7.4B against $3.7B).
On earnings, Eastman Chemical is cheaper: it trades at 12.0× trailing earnings, against 13.3× for Cabot.
Cabot grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (16.6% versus 0.27% for Eastman Chemical).
Eastman Chemical keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 6.9% compared with 6.4% at Cabot.
Both pay dividends: Cabot yields 2.6% and Eastman Chemical 5.2%.
Cabot scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 16 for Eastman Chemical), 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 | CBT | EMN |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.7B | $7.4B |
| Share price | $71.92 | $65.03 |
| Change, 1 year | 17.0% | 6.7% |
| Change, 5 years | 21.4% | −42.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.93 | 1.10 |
| Employees | 4,100 | 13K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 19 (better) | 16 |
| Valuation score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 13.3× | 12.0× (better) |
| P/S | 0.8× (better) | 0.8× |
| P/B | 2.3× | 1.2× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 5.5× | – |
| P/FCF | 7.9× (better) | 15.9× |
| PEG | 0.72 | – |
| FCF yield | 12.6% (better) | 6.3% |
| Fair value | $134.97 | $92.79 |
| Margin of safety | 46.7% (better) | 29.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 16.6% (better) | 0.27% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.3% (better) | 0.65% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −32.8% | −13.3% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −29.8% | −12.3% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 3.2% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 23.5% (better) | 20.6% |
| Operating margin | 14.5% | – |
| Net margin | 6.4% | 6.9% (better) |
| FCF margin | 10.3% (better) | 5.2% |
| Return on equity | 19.2% (better) | 10.4% |
| Return on invested capital | 15.1% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.79 (better) | 0.83 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.16 | – |
| Interest coverage | 7.1× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.47 | 1.57 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.49 (better) | 2.13 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.6% | 5.2% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 41.6% | 61.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | 4 | 16 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 4.7% (better) | 4.5% |
| Buyback yield | 4.8% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 7.4% (better) | 5.2% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 104% | 94.1% |
| Held by insiders | 2.1% | 0.83% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$19.6M | −$206K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 10.3% | 4.9% |
Go deeper
- CBT stock overview
- CBT income statement
- CBT valuation and score
- EMN stock overview
- EMN income statement
- EMN valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.