Clarivate vs John Wiley & Sons
CLVT and WLY side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CLVT and WLY compare
John Wiley & Sons is the larger company, worth 1.7 times as much as Clarivate ($2.6B against $1.5B).
John Wiley & Sons grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (−0.27% versus −3.5% for Clarivate).
John Wiley & Sons keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 11.9% compared with −13.8% at Clarivate.
John Wiley & Sons pays a dividend yielding 2.8%; Clarivate does not pay one.
John Wiley & Sons scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 7 for Clarivate), 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 | CLVT | WLY |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.5B | $2.6B |
| Share price | $2.32 | $51.20 |
| Change, 1 year | −33.3% | 39.1% |
| Change, 5 years | −90.1% | −5.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.09 | 0.83 |
| Employees | 12K | 4,500 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 7 | 16 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Growth score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 13.7× |
| P/S | 0.6× (better) | 1.6× |
| P/B | 0.3× (better) | 3.3× |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.2× (better) | 9.6× |
| P/FCF | 4.5× (better) | 10.8× |
| PEG | – | 0.10 |
| FCF yield | 22.1% (better) | 9.2% |
| Fair value | $9.65 | $57.04 |
| Margin of safety | 76.0% (better) | 10.2% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −3.5% | −0.27% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 14.4% (better) | −2.9% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 104% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 111% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 9.6% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 66.8% | 74.6% (better) |
| Operating margin | −3.5% | 14.9% (better) |
| Net margin | −13.8% | 11.9% (better) |
| FCF margin | 13.6% | 14.4% (better) |
| Return on equity | −7.0% | 25.9% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −0.76% | 14.4% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.93 (better) | 1.62 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 6.00 | 3.01 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 5.3× |
| Current ratio | 0.85 (better) | 0.64 |
| Altman Z-score | −0.72 | 2.13 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 2.8% |
| Payout ratio | – | 37.1% |
| Buyback yield | 9.6% (better) | 3.9% |
| Shareholder yield | 9.6% (better) | 6.7% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 91.1% | 83.0% |
| Held by insiders | 8.9% | 20.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$4.3M | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 8.3% | – |
Go deeper
- CLVT stock overview
- CLVT income statement
- CLVT valuation and score
- WLY stock overview
- WLY income statement
- WLY valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.