Core & Main vs SiteOne Landscape Supply
CNM and SITE side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CNM and SITE compare
Core & Main is the larger company, worth 1.7 times as much as SiteOne Landscape Supply ($8.4B against $4.8B).
On earnings, Core & Main is cheaper: it trades at 18.3× trailing earnings, against 30.4× for SiteOne Landscape Supply.
SiteOne Landscape Supply grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (3.3% versus −0.54% for Core & Main).
Core & Main keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 6.0% compared with 3.4% at SiteOne Landscape Supply.
Core & Main scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 13 for SiteOne Landscape Supply), 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 | SITE |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $8.4B | $4.8B |
| Share price | $44.25 | $110.87 |
| Change, 1 year | −16.7% | −16.1% |
| Change, 5 years | 63.2% | −54.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.22 | 1.41 |
| Employees | 5,600 | 8,200 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 (better) | 13 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 18.3× (better) | 30.4× |
| P/S | 1.1× | 1.0× (better) |
| P/B | 4.2× | 2.9× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 11.5× (better) | 20.9× |
| P/FCF | 13.4× (better) | 18.7× |
| PEG | 6.67 | – |
| FCF yield | 7.5% (better) | 5.4% |
| Fair value | $48.24 | $97.93 |
| Margin of safety | 8.3% (better) | −13.2% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −0.54% | 3.3% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 16.0% (better) | 11.7% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 6.5% | 30.9% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 8.5% | 33.2% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 4.2% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 27.0% | 35.1% (better) |
| Operating margin | 9.6% (better) | 5.3% |
| Net margin | 6.0% (better) | 3.4% |
| FCF margin | 8.2% (better) | 5.4% |
| Return on equity | 23.4% (better) | 9.8% |
| Return on invested capital | 13.7% (better) | 9.5% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.21 | 0.30 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.30 | 1.66 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 6.3× | 7.1× (better) |
| Current ratio | 2.47 (better) | 2.30 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.09 | 4.06 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 4.3% (better) | 3.0% |
| Shareholder yield | 4.3% (better) | 3.0% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 105% | 108% |
| Held by insiders | 2.7% | 1.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$67.6K | $879K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.7% | 8.9% |
Go deeper
- CNM stock overview
- CNM income statement
- CNM valuation and score
- SITE stock overview
- SITE income statement
- SITE valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.