Colgate Palmolive vs Ecolab
CL and ECL 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 CL and ECL compare
Colgate Palmolive and Ecolab are about the same size, with market caps of $76.0B and $84.9B.
On earnings, Colgate Palmolive is cheaper: it trades at 37.4× trailing earnings, against 41.2× for Ecolab.
Ecolab grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (9.3% versus 5.9% for Colgate Palmolive).
Ecolab keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 12.0% compared with 9.6% at Colgate Palmolive.
Both pay dividends: Colgate Palmolive yields 1.7% and Ecolab 0.96%.
Ecolab scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 10 for Colgate Palmolive), 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 | CL | ECL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $76.0B | $84.9B |
| Share price | $95.29 | $302.98 |
| Change, 1 year | 25.8% | 17.7% |
| Change, 5 years | 22.4% | 31.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.29 | 0.96 |
| Employees | 34K | 48K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 17 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 37.4× (better) | 41.2× |
| P/S | 3.6× (better) | 4.9× |
| P/B | 264× | 8.1× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 21.6× (better) | 33.6× |
| P/FCF | 20.0× (better) | 47.3× |
| PEG | 5.13 | 1.71 (better) |
| FCF yield | 5.0% (better) | 2.1% |
| Fair value | $71.41 | $226.29 |
| Margin of safety | −33.4% (better) | −33.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.9% | 9.3% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.4% | 6.4% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −29.4% | 4.9% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −28.6% | 5.6% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −3.5% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 60.6% (better) | 43.9% |
| Operating margin | 14.8% | 16.7% (better) |
| Net margin | 9.6% | 12.0% (better) |
| FCF margin | 17.8% (better) | 10.3% |
| Return on equity | 359% (better) | 20.7% |
| Return on invested capital | 36.1% (better) | 12.1% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 24.94 | 1.27 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.49 (better) | 4.30 |
| Interest coverage | 12.6× (better) | 7.4× |
| Current ratio | 0.96 | 1.11 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 7.00 (better) | 3.98 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.7% (better) | 0.96% |
| Payout ratio | – | 39.3% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 16 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 3.5% | 7.2% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 1.8% (better) | 1.3% |
| Shareholder yield | 3.4% (better) | 2.2% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 85.4% | 80.6% |
| Held by insiders | 0.15% | 10.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$57.1M | −$23.2M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.0% | 2.1% |
Go deeper
- CL stock overview
- CL income statement
- CL valuation and score
- ECL stock overview
- ECL income statement
- ECL valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.