Clearwater Paper vs Sylvamo
CLW and SLVM 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 SLVM compare
Sylvamo is the larger company, worth 6.5 times as much as Clearwater Paper ($1.5B against $235M).
Sylvamo grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (12.4% versus −3.2% for Clearwater Paper).
Clearwater Paper keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 0.16% compared with −4.9% at Sylvamo.
Sylvamo pays a dividend yielding 4.7%; Clearwater Paper does not pay one.
Sylvamo scores higher on the StockData Score (8 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 | SLVM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $235M | $1.5B |
| Share price | $14.56 | $38.53 |
| Change, 1 year | −21.1% | −17.7% |
| Change, 5 years | −65.1% | 21.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.64 | 0.64 |
| Employees | 3,340 | 6,500 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 5 | 8 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 2 | 2 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 91.0× | – |
| P/S | 0.2× (better) | 0.4× |
| P/B | 0.3× (better) | 2.1× |
| EV/EBITDA | 11.1× | 8.0× (better) |
| P/FCF | 4.1× | – |
| FCF yield | 24.2% (better) | −3.4% |
| Fair value | $6.01 | $59.90 |
| Margin of safety | −142% | 35.7% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −3.2% | 12.4% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −3.6% | 7.0% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −98.3% (better) | −200% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −98.1% (better) | −204% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | −3.4% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 1.8% | 17.8% (better) |
| Operating margin | −1.6% | 2.8% (better) |
| Net margin | 0.16% (better) | −4.9% |
| FCF margin | 3.8% (better) | −1.4% |
| Return on equity | 0.30% (better) | −21.0% |
| Return on invested capital | −1.6% | 4.8% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.71 (better) | 1.22 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 7.67 | 2.77 (better) |
| Interest coverage | −1.2× | 1.7× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.47 (better) | 1.29 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.76 | 2.96 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 4.7% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 3 |
| Buyback yield | 0.04% (better) | 0.00% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.04% | 4.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 89.5% | 99.7% |
| Held by insiders | 5.2% | 17.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $0 (better) | −$658K |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.8% | 7.9% |
Go deeper
- CLW stock overview
- CLW income statement
- CLW valuation and score
- SLVM stock overview
- SLVM income statement
- SLVM valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.