Core & Main vs Pool
CNM and POOL side by side, both in wholesale trade-durable goods. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CNM and POOL compare
Core & Main and Pool are about the same size, with market caps of $8.4B and $7.5B.
On earnings, Core & Main is cheaper: it trades at 18.3× trailing earnings, against 18.9× for Pool.
Pool grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (2.2% versus −0.54% for Core & Main).
Pool keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 7.4% compared with 6.0% at Core & Main.
Pool pays a dividend yielding 2.5%; Core & Main does not pay one.
Pool scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 14 for Core & Main), 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 | CNM | POOL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $8.4B | $7.5B |
| Share price | $44.25 | $205.95 |
| Change, 1 year | −16.7% | −27.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 63.2% | −60.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.22 | 0.98 |
| Employees | 5,600 | 6,000 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 | 19 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 | 4 |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 5 | 5 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 18.3× (better) | 18.9× |
| P/S | 1.1× (better) | 1.4× |
| P/B | 4.2× (better) | 5.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | 11.5× (better) | 15.2× |
| P/FCF | 13.4× (better) | 24.9× |
| PEG | 6.67 | – |
| FCF yield | 7.5% (better) | 4.0% |
| Fair value | $48.24 | $224.30 |
| Margin of safety | 8.3% (better) | 8.2% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −0.54% | 2.2% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 16.0% (better) | 6.1% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 6.5% (better) | −2.6% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 8.5% (better) | 0.28% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 3.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 27.0% | 29.6% (better) |
| Operating margin | 9.6% | 10.8% (better) |
| Net margin | 6.0% | 7.4% (better) |
| FCF margin | 8.2% (better) | 5.6% |
| Return on equity | 23.4% | 31.3% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 13.7% | 17.4% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.21 | 1.06 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.30 | 2.26 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 6.3× | – |
| Current ratio | 2.47 | 2.67 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.09 | 4.37 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 2.5% |
| Payout ratio | – | 46.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 15 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 16.7% |
| Buyback yield | 4.3% (better) | 3.6% |
| Shareholder yield | 4.3% | 6.1% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 105% | 110% |
| Held by insiders | 2.7% | 3.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$67.6K | $5.7M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.7% | 10.4% |
Go deeper
- CNM stock overview
- CNM income statement
- CNM valuation and score
- POOL stock overview
- POOL income statement
- POOL valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.