Central Garden & Pet vs Scotts Miracle-Gro
CENT and SMG side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CENT and SMG compare
Scotts Miracle-Gro is the larger company, worth 1.3 times as much as Central Garden & Pet ($3.8B against $3.0B).
On earnings, Central Garden & Pet is cheaper: it trades at 17.7× trailing earnings, against 53.8× for Scotts Miracle-Gro.
Scotts Miracle-Gro grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (4.6% versus −1.2% for Central Garden & Pet).
Central Garden & Pet keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 5.4% compared with 2.1% at Scotts Miracle-Gro.
Scotts Miracle-Gro pays a dividend yielding 4.1%; Central Garden & Pet does not pay one.
Central Garden & Pet scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 12 for Scotts Miracle-Gro), 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 | CENT | SMG |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.0B | $3.8B |
| Share price | $47.36 | $65.04 |
| Change, 1 year | 49.1% | 14.2% |
| Change, 5 years | −11.5% | −60.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.58 | 1.30 |
| Employees | 6,000 | 5,200 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 (better) | 12 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 3 | 3 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 17.7× (better) | 53.8× |
| P/S | 1.0× (better) | 1.1× |
| P/B | 1.7× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 9.5× (better) | 15.4× |
| P/FCF | 8.6× (better) | 14.4× |
| PEG | 4.00 | – |
| FCF yield | 11.7% (better) | 7.0% |
| Fair value | $57.38 | $51.84 |
| Margin of safety | 17.5% (better) | −25.5% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −1.2% | 4.6% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 3.0% (better) | −3.7% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 20.1% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 21.8% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 7.7% (better) | −18.4% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 32.5% (better) | 31.8% |
| Operating margin | 8.1% | 11.0% (better) |
| Net margin | 5.4% (better) | 2.1% |
| FCF margin | 11.2% (better) | 7.6% |
| Return on equity | 10.0% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 9.5% | 12.3% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.68 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.59 (better) | 5.45 |
| Interest coverage | 4.4× (better) | 3.4× |
| Current ratio | 3.79 (better) | 1.21 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.83 (better) | 2.44 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 4.1% |
| Payout ratio | – | 209% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | −18.5% |
| Buyback yield | 0.98% (better) | 0.32% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.98% | 4.4% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 92.9% | 86.5% |
| Held by insiders | 5.1% | 53.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$948K (better) | −$5.4M |
| Short interest, % of float | – | 19.0% |
Go deeper
- CENT stock overview
- CENT income statement
- CENT valuation and score
- SMG stock overview
- SMG income statement
- SMG valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.