Clorox vs Edgewell Personal Care
CLX and EPC side by side, both in soap, detergents, and cleaning preparations; perfumes, cosmetics, and other toilet preparations. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CLX and EPC compare
Clorox is the larger company, worth 8.1 times as much as Edgewell Personal Care ($10.6B against $1.3B).
Edgewell Personal Care grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (11.6% versus −5.4% for Clorox).
Clorox keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 8.7% compared with −4.2% at Edgewell Personal Care.
Both pay dividends: Clorox yields 4.2% and Edgewell Personal Care 2.1%.
Clorox scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 7 for Edgewell Personal Care), 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 | CLX | EPC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $10.6B | $1.3B |
| Share price | $88.00 | $28.57 |
| Change, 1 year | −20.5% | 50.7% |
| Change, 5 years | −46.1% | −25.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.53 | 0.67 |
| Employees | 9,200 | 6,700 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 (better) | 7 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 18.3× | – |
| P/S | 1.6× | 0.6× (better) |
| P/B | 118× | 0.9× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 13.5× (better) | 21.6× |
| P/FCF | 26.3× | 25.1× (better) |
| PEG | 0.31 | – |
| FCF yield | 3.8% | 4.0% (better) |
| Fair value | $143.34 | – |
| Margin of safety | 38.6% | – |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −5.4% | 11.6% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −1.8% | 2.7% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −27.5% (better) | −244% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −26.2% (better) | −247% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −2.9% (better) | −15.6% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 42.3% (better) | 39.5% |
| Operating margin | – | 0.80% |
| Net margin | 8.7% (better) | −4.2% |
| FCF margin | 6.0% (better) | 2.3% |
| Return on equity | 286% (better) | −6.2% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 0.56% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 56.31 | 0.85 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.22 (better) | 8.47 |
| Interest coverage | – | 0.3× |
| Current ratio | 0.66 | 1.84 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.63 (better) | 1.60 |
| Piotroski F-score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 4.2% (better) | 2.1% |
| Payout ratio | 103% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 17 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 2.2% | – |
| Buyback yield | 2.4% (better) | 1.2% |
| Shareholder yield | 6.6% (better) | 3.3% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 86.3% | 117% |
| Held by insiders | 0.65% | 1.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $846K (better) | −$5.7K |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 9.6% | 10.4% |
Go deeper
- CLX stock overview
- CLX income statement
- CLX valuation and score
- EPC stock overview
- EPC income statement
- EPC valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.