Chatham Lodging Trust vs Pebblebrook Hotel Trust
CLDT.PA and PEB side by side, both in miscellaneous investing. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CLDT.PA and PEB compare
Pebblebrook Hotel Trust is the larger company, worth 2.7 times as much as Chatham Lodging Trust ($2.4B against $891M).
Chatham Lodging Trust grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (3.8% versus 2.8% for Pebblebrook Hotel Trust).
Chatham Lodging Trust keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 5.0% compared with −4.6% at Pebblebrook Hotel Trust.
Both pay dividends: Chatham Lodging Trust yields 8.7% and Pebblebrook Hotel Trust 0.19%.
Chatham Lodging Trust scores higher on the StockData Score (8 against 5 for Pebblebrook Hotel Trust), 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 | CLDT.PA | PEB |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $891M | $2.4B |
| Share price | $19.14 | $21.12 |
| Change, 1 year | −4.2% | 105% |
| Change, 5 years | −25.9% | −12.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.49 | 1.21 |
| Employees | 16 | 52 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 (better) | 5 |
| Valuation score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 1 | 1 |
| Health score | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 120× | – |
| P/S | 2.8× | 1.6× (better) |
| P/B | 1.2× | 1.0× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.9× (better) | 47.1× |
| PEG | 2.31 | – |
| Fair value | $21.68 | $14.89 |
| Margin of safety | 11.7% (better) | −41.8% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 3.8% (better) | 2.8% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 15.3% | 27.2% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 80.6% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 1500% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 34.4% |
| Operating margin | 13.4% (better) | 3.1% |
| Net margin | 5.0% (better) | −4.6% |
| Return on equity | 2.1% (better) | −2.8% |
| Return on invested capital | 5.8% (better) | 1.7% |
| Financial health | ||
| Interest coverage | 1.6× (better) | 0.4× |
| Altman Z-score | 1.16 (better) | 0.41 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 8.7% (better) | 0.19% |
| Payout ratio | 121% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 1 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 10.4% | – |
| Buyback yield | 1.8% (better) | 1.8% |
| Shareholder yield | 10.5% (better) | 1.9% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 95.3% | 127% |
| Held by insiders | 2.9% | 2.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | – | $408K |
| Short interest, % of float | – | 18.2% |
Go deeper
- CLDT.PA stock overview
- CLDT.PA income statement
- CLDT.PA valuation and score
- PEB stock overview
- PEB income statement
- PEB valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.