Clearwater Paper vs Packaging Corp of America
CLW and PKG 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 PKG compare
Packaging Corp of America is the larger company, worth 107 times as much as Clearwater Paper ($22.9B against $214M).
Packaging Corp of America grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (10.3% versus −1.9% for Clearwater Paper).
Packaging Corp of America keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 7.3% compared with −3.2% at Clearwater Paper.
Packaging Corp of America pays a dividend yielding 2.1%; Clearwater Paper does not pay one.
Packaging Corp of America scores higher on the StockData Score (12 against 6 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 | PKG |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $214M | $22.9B |
| Share price | $13.27 | $256.82 |
| Change, 1 year | −24.9% | 30.6% |
| Change, 5 years | −65.6% | 89.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.57 | 0.65 |
| Employees | 3,340 | 17K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 6 | 12 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 3 | 3 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 33.4× |
| P/S | 0.1× (better) | 2.4× |
| P/B | 0.3× (better) | 4.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | 40.7× | 14.5× (better) |
| P/FCF | 3.8× (better) | 30.8× |
| FCF yield | 26.4% (better) | 3.2% |
| Fair value | $39.18 | $154.51 |
| Margin of safety | 66.1% (better) | −66.2% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −1.9% | 10.3% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −3.6% | 6.2% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −124% | −23.5% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −125% | −23.2% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 12.1% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 1.6% | 20.1% (better) |
| Operating margin | −5.4% | 10.9% (better) |
| Net margin | −3.2% | 7.3% (better) |
| FCF margin | 3.7% | 7.8% (better) |
| Return on equity | −6.0% | 14.9% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −6.0% | 10.9% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.45 (better) | 0.85 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 22.52 | 1.86 (better) |
| Interest coverage | −4.1× | – |
| Current ratio | 2.29 | 2.94 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.93 | 4.09 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 2.1% |
| Payout ratio | – | 64.8% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 8.2% |
| Buyback yield | 1.0% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 1.0% | 2.1% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 89.6% | 98.1% |
| Held by insiders | 5.2% | 1.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$161K (better) | −$15.0M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.1% | 3.4% |
Go deeper
- CLW stock overview
- CLW income statement
- CLW valuation and score
- PKG stock overview
- PKG income statement
- PKG valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.