Celanese vs Eastman Chemical
CE 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 CE and EMN compare
Eastman Chemical is the larger company, worth 1.3 times as much as Celanese ($7.6B against $5.6B).
Eastman Chemical grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (0.27% versus −2.2% for Celanese).
Eastman Chemical keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 6.9% compared with −12.0% at Celanese.
Both pay dividends: Celanese yields 0.17% and Eastman Chemical 5.1%.
Eastman Chemical scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 7 for Celanese), 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 | CE | EMN |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $5.6B | $7.6B |
| Share price | $51.45 | $66.51 |
| Change, 1 year | 24.6% | 8.1% |
| Change, 5 years | −69.0% | −41.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.12 | 1.10 |
| Employees | 11K | 13K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 7 | 16 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 1 |
| Performance score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Dividend score | 2 | 6 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 12.2× |
| P/S | 0.6× (better) | 0.8× |
| P/B | 1.4× | 1.2× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 117× | – |
| P/FCF | 8.0× (better) | 16.2× |
| FCF yield | 12.5% (better) | 6.2% |
| Fair value | $87.24 | $93.06 |
| Margin of safety | 41.0% (better) | 28.5% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −2.2% | 0.27% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 11.0% (better) | 0.65% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | −13.3% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | −12.3% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 3.2% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 20.9% (better) | 20.6% |
| Operating margin | −7.1% | – |
| Net margin | −12.0% | 6.9% (better) |
| FCF margin | 7.3% (better) | 5.2% |
| Return on equity | −24.8% | 10.4% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −3.4% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 2.88 | 0.83 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 74.43 | – |
| Interest coverage | −1.0× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.45 | 1.57 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.31 | 2.15 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.17% | 5.1% (better) |
| Payout ratio | – | 61.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 16 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 4.5% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.17% | 5.1% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 111% | 94.1% |
| Held by insiders | 0.41% | 0.83% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $593K (better) | −$206K |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.6% | 4.9% |
Go deeper
- CE stock overview
- CE income statement
- CE 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.