Central Garden & Pet vs Universal
CENT and UVV side by side, both in wholesale trade-non-durable goods. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CENT and UVV compare
Central Garden & Pet is the larger company, worth 3.1 times as much as Universal ($3.0B against $945M).
Central Garden & Pet grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (−1.2% versus −9.4% for Universal).
Central Garden & Pet keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 5.4% compared with −0.09% at Universal.
Universal pays a dividend yielding 8.7%; Central Garden & Pet does not pay one.
Central Garden & Pet scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 8 for Universal), 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 | UVV |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.0B | $945M |
| Share price | $47.36 | $37.95 |
| Change, 1 year | 49.1% | −28.1% |
| Change, 5 years | −11.5% | −21.1% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.58 | 0.31 |
| Employees | 6,000 | 25K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 (better) | 8 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 17.7× | – |
| P/S | 1.0× | 0.4× (better) |
| P/B | 1.7× | 0.7× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 9.5× (better) | 13.0× |
| P/FCF | 8.6× (better) | 38.8× |
| PEG | 4.00 | – |
| FCF yield | 11.7% (better) | 2.6% |
| Fair value | $57.38 | $34.44 |
| Margin of safety | 17.5% (better) | −10.2% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −1.2% (better) | −9.4% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 3.0% | 8.0% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 20.1% (better) | −102% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 21.8% (better) | −102% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 7.7% (better) | −18.1% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 32.5% (better) | 15.2% |
| Operating margin | 8.1% (better) | 4.2% |
| Net margin | 5.4% (better) | −0.09% |
| FCF margin | 11.2% (better) | 0.91% |
| Return on equity | 10.0% (better) | −0.17% |
| Return on invested capital | 9.5% (better) | 3.5% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.68 (better) | 0.86 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.59 (better) | 7.01 |
| Interest coverage | 4.4× (better) | 1.6× |
| Current ratio | 3.79 (better) | 2.54 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.83 (better) | 2.40 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 8.7% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 17 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 1.3% |
| Buyback yield | 0.98% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 0.98% | 8.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 92.9% | 81.0% |
| Held by insiders | 5.1% | 2.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$948K | −$497K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | – | 8.8% |
Go deeper
- CENT stock overview
- CENT income statement
- CENT valuation and score
- UVV stock overview
- UVV income statement
- UVV valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.