Core Molding Technologies vs Latham
CMT and SWIM side by side, both in miscellaneous plastics products. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CMT and SWIM compare
Latham is the larger company, worth 5.0 times as much as Core Molding Technologies ($972M against $196M).
On earnings, Core Molding Technologies is cheaper: it trades at 27.4× trailing earnings, against 103× for Latham.
Latham grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (11.9% versus 9.4% for Core Molding Technologies).
Core Molding Technologies keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 2.4% compared with 1.6% at Latham.
Core Molding Technologies scores higher on the StockData Score (12 against 8 for Latham), 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 | CMT | SWIM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $196M | $972M |
| Share price | $22.17 | $8.26 |
| Change, 1 year | 16.0% | 21.1% |
| Change, 5 years | 135% | −63.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.62 | 1.89 |
| Employees | 1,239 | 1,804 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 12 (better) | 8 |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 1 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 27.4× (better) | 103× |
| P/S | 0.7× (better) | 1.6× |
| P/B | 1.2× (better) | 2.3× |
| EV/EBITDA | 9.6× (better) | 13.8× |
| P/FCF | – | 20.9× |
| FCF yield | −9.8% | 4.8% (better) |
| Fair value | $22.39 | $5.49 |
| Margin of safety | 1.00% (better) | −50.4% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 9.4% | 11.9% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.3% | 6.2% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −13.5% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −13.8% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 5.7% (better) | −10.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 17.3% | 33.8% (better) |
| Operating margin | 2.9% | 5.3% (better) |
| Net margin | 2.4% (better) | 1.6% |
| FCF margin | −6.7% | 7.8% (better) |
| Return on equity | 4.4% (better) | 2.2% |
| Return on invested capital | 4.7% | 5.0% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.69 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.27 | 2.33 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 49.1× (better) | 1.4× |
| Current ratio | 1.86 | 2.38 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 4.19 (better) | 2.17 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 1.6% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 1.6% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 72.7% | 92.6% |
| Held by insiders | 14.2% | 17.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$328K | $316K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.6% | 4.4% |
Go deeper
- CMT stock overview
- CMT income statement
- CMT valuation and score
- SWIM stock overview
- SWIM income statement
- SWIM valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.