Church & Dwight vs Procter & Gamble
CHD and PG side by side, both in soap, detergents, and cleaning preparations; perfumes, cosmetics, and other toilet preparations. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CHD and PG compare
Procter & Gamble is the larger company, worth 15 times as much as Church & Dwight ($376B against $25.4B).
On earnings, Procter & Gamble is cheaper: it trades at 24.4× trailing earnings, against 33.0× for Church & Dwight.
Procter & Gamble grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (3.3% versus 1.7% for Church & Dwight).
Procter & Gamble keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 18.4% compared with 12.4% at Church & Dwight.
Both pay dividends: Church & Dwight yields 1.1% and Procter & Gamble 2.0%.
Church & Dwight scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 12 for Procter & Gamble), 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 | CHD | PG |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $25.4B | $376B |
| Share price | $107.23 | $161.57 |
| Change, 1 year | 31.0% | 8.6% |
| Change, 5 years | 20.8% | 10.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.31 | 0.40 |
| Employees | 5,550 | 104K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 17 (better) | 12 |
| Valuation score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 4 | 4 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 33.0× | 24.4× (better) |
| P/S | 4.1× (better) | 4.3× |
| P/B | 5.7× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 24.2× | 17.5× (better) |
| P/FCF | 24.0× (better) | 24.8× |
| PEG | 1.53 (better) | 6.24 |
| FCF yield | 4.2% (better) | 4.0% |
| Fair value | $85.55 | $153.13 |
| Margin of safety | −25.3% | −5.5% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 1.7% | 3.3% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.8% (better) | 2.7% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −0.98% | 0.45% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 2.2% (better) | 1.7% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −0.65% | 3.8% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 46.1% | 50.2% (better) |
| Operating margin | 18.0% | 22.7% (better) |
| Net margin | 12.4% | 18.4% (better) |
| FCF margin | 16.9% | 17.4% (better) |
| Return on equity | 17.8% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 14.3% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.49 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.56 | 1.06 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 11.6× | 22.5× (better) |
| Current ratio | 0.96 (better) | 0.68 |
| Altman Z-score | 5.28 | 5.71 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.1% | 2.0% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 37.5% | 63.8% |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 (better) | 8 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 4.2% | 5.6% (better) |
| Buyback yield | – | 1.3% |
| Shareholder yield | 1.1% | 3.3% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 92.3% | 70.3% |
| Held by insiders | 0.12% | 0.06% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$12.1M (better) | −$62.2M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.1% | 1.1% |
Go deeper
- CHD stock overview
- CHD income statement
- CHD valuation and score
- PG stock overview
- PG income statement
- PG valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.