Clearwater Paper vs Mativ
CLW and MATV side by side, both in paper and allied products. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CLW and MATV compare
Mativ is the larger company, worth 2.8 times as much as Clearwater Paper ($651M against $235M).
On earnings, Mativ is cheaper: it trades at 7.1× trailing earnings, against 91.0× for Clearwater Paper.
Mativ grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (−0.43% versus −3.2% for Clearwater Paper).
Mativ keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 4.6% compared with 0.16% at Clearwater Paper.
Mativ pays a dividend yielding 3.4%; Clearwater Paper does not pay one.
Mativ scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 5 for Clearwater Paper), 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 | CLW | MATV |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $235M | $651M |
| Share price | $14.56 | $11.79 |
| Change, 1 year | −21.1% | −10.7% |
| Change, 5 years | −65.1% | −63.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.64 | 1.20 |
| Employees | 3,340 | 5,000 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 5 | 13 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 91.0× | 7.1× (better) |
| P/S | 0.2× (better) | 0.3× |
| P/B | 0.3× (better) | 1.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | 11.1× | 7.3× (better) |
| P/FCF | 4.1× (better) | 6.6× |
| FCF yield | 24.2% (better) | 15.1% |
| Fair value | $6.01 | $22.53 |
| Margin of safety | −142% | 47.7% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −3.2% | −0.43% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −3.6% | 13.1% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −98.3% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −98.1% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 1.8% | 19.4% (better) |
| Operating margin | −1.6% | 3.7% (better) |
| Net margin | 0.16% | 4.6% (better) |
| FCF margin | 3.8% | 5.0% (better) |
| Return on equity | 0.30% | 21.2% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −1.6% | 4.3% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.71 (better) | 2.09 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 7.67 | 4.19 (better) |
| Interest coverage | −1.2× | 1.0× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.47 | 1.93 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.76 (better) | 1.39 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 3.4% |
| Payout ratio | – | 24.6% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | −25.6% |
| Buyback yield | 0.04% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 0.04% | 3.4% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 89.5% | 93.9% |
| Held by insiders | 5.2% | 2.3% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $0 | – |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.8% | 1.6% |
Go deeper
- CLW stock overview
- CLW income statement
- CLW valuation and score
- MATV stock overview
- MATV income statement
- MATV valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.