Colgate Palmolive vs Estee Lauder Companies
CL and EL 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 EL compare
Colgate Palmolive is the larger company, worth 1.9 times as much as Estee Lauder Companies ($76.0B against $39.5B).
On earnings, Colgate Palmolive is cheaper: it trades at 37.4× trailing earnings, against 218× for Estee Lauder Companies.
Colgate Palmolive grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.9% versus 5.0% for Estee Lauder Companies).
Both pay dividends: Colgate Palmolive yields 1.7% and Estee Lauder Companies 1.3%.
Colgate Palmolive scores higher on the StockData Score (10 against 8 for Estee Lauder Companies), 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 | EL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $76.0B | $39.5B |
| Share price | $95.29 | $109.23 |
| Change, 1 year | 25.8% | 12.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 22.4% | −68.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.29 | 1.18 |
| Employees | 34K | 57K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 (better) | 8 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 3 | 3 |
| Dividend score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 37.4× (better) | 218× |
| P/S | 3.6× | 2.6× (better) |
| P/B | 264× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 21.6× (better) | 27.5× |
| P/FCF | 20.0× (better) | 30.0× |
| PEG | 5.13 | – |
| FCF yield | 5.0% (better) | 3.3% |
| Fair value | $71.41 | $47.13 |
| Margin of safety | −33.4% (better) | −132% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.9% (better) | 5.0% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.4% (better) | −1.5% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −29.4% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −28.6% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −3.5% (better) | −42.3% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 60.6% | 75.5% (better) |
| Operating margin | 14.8% (better) | 5.2% |
| Net margin | 9.6% | – |
| FCF margin | 17.8% (better) | 8.7% |
| Return on equity | 359% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 36.1% (better) | 4.7% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 24.94 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.49 (better) | 2.42 |
| Interest coverage | 12.6× (better) | 2.3× |
| Current ratio | 0.96 | 1.22 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 7.00 (better) | 3.27 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | – |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.7% (better) | 1.3% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 3.5% (better) | −7.5% |
| Buyback yield | 1.8% (better) | 0.18% |
| Shareholder yield | 3.4% (better) | 1.5% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 85.4% | 63.5% |
| Held by insiders | 0.15% | 54.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$57.1M (better) | −$1.0B |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.0% | 4.0% |
Go deeper
- CL stock overview
- CL income statement
- CL valuation and score
- EL stock overview
- EL income statement
- EL valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.