Colgate Palmolive vs Kimberly Clark
CL and KMB side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CL and KMB compare
Colgate Palmolive is the larger company, worth 2.1 times as much as Kimberly Clark ($76.0B against $35.9B).
On earnings, Kimberly Clark is cheaper: it trades at 18.4× trailing earnings, against 37.4× for Colgate Palmolive.
Colgate Palmolive grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.9% versus 0.71% for Kimberly Clark).
Kimberly Clark keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 11.8% compared with 9.6% at Colgate Palmolive.
Both pay dividends: Colgate Palmolive yields 1.7% and Kimberly Clark 4.7%.
Kimberly Clark scores higher on the StockData Score (19 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 | KMB |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $76.0B | $35.9B |
| Share price | $95.29 | $107.94 |
| Change, 1 year | 25.8% | −7.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 22.4% | −18.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.29 | 0.33 |
| Employees | 34K | 36K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 19 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 37.4× | 18.4× (better) |
| P/S | 3.6× | 2.2× (better) |
| P/B | 264× | 20.5× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 21.6× | 12.8× (better) |
| P/FCF | 20.0× | 19.7× (better) |
| PEG | 5.13 (better) | 9.18 |
| FCF yield | 5.0% | 5.1% (better) |
| Fair value | $71.41 | $109.03 |
| Margin of safety | −33.4% | 1.0% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.9% (better) | 0.71% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.4% (better) | −3.0% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −29.4% | −19.5% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −28.6% | −19.0% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −3.5% | −2.4% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 60.6% (better) | 36.8% |
| Operating margin | 14.8% | 15.2% (better) |
| Net margin | 9.6% | 11.8% (better) |
| FCF margin | 17.8% (better) | 11.0% |
| Return on equity | 359% (better) | 129% |
| Return on invested capital | 36.1% (better) | 22.3% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 24.94 | 3.72 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.49 (better) | 1.72 |
| Interest coverage | 12.6× (better) | 10.7× |
| Current ratio | 0.96 (better) | 0.91 |
| Altman Z-score | 7.00 (better) | 3.33 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.7% | 4.7% (better) |
| Payout ratio | – | 85.9% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 3.5% (better) | 3.3% |
| Buyback yield | 1.8% (better) | 0.06% |
| Shareholder yield | 3.4% | 4.8% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 85.4% | 96.9% |
| Held by insiders | 0.15% | 0.22% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$57.1M | $33.8K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.0% | 16.0% |
Go deeper
- CL stock overview
- CL income statement
- CL valuation and score
- KMB stock overview
- KMB income statement
- KMB valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.