Carlisle Companies vs Newell Brands
CSL and NWL side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CSL and NWL compare
Carlisle Companies is the larger company, worth 6.8 times as much as Newell Brands ($14.9B against $2.2B).
Carlisle Companies grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (1.9% versus 0.79% for Newell Brands).
Carlisle Companies keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 14.2% compared with −4.4% at Newell Brands.
Both pay dividends: Carlisle Companies yields 1.2% and Newell Brands 5.4%.
Carlisle Companies scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 9 for Newell Brands), 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 | CSL | NWL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $14.9B | $2.2B |
| Share price | $376.31 | $5.18 |
| Change, 1 year | 13.6% | 5.1% |
| Change, 5 years | 61.3% | −78.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.92 | 1.20 |
| Employees | 5,900 | 22K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 (better) | 9 |
| Valuation score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 21.6× | – |
| P/S | 2.9× | 0.3× (better) |
| P/B | 9.2× | 0.9× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.1× (better) | 17.3× |
| P/FCF | 17.2× (better) | 41.6× |
| FCF yield | 5.8% (better) | 2.4% |
| Fair value | $355.93 | $5.84 |
| Margin of safety | −5.7% | 11.2% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 1.9% (better) | 0.79% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.8% (better) | −5.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −10.1% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −2.7% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 24.2% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 35.3% | 35.6% (better) |
| Operating margin | 19.9% (better) | 0.98% |
| Net margin | 14.2% (better) | −4.4% |
| FCF margin | 17.0% (better) | 0.72% |
| Return on equity | 38.8% (better) | −12.8% |
| Return on invested capital | 20.2% (better) | 0.81% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.79 (better) | 2.05 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.83 (better) | 11.58 |
| Interest coverage | 9.7× | – |
| Current ratio | 2.60 (better) | 1.27 |
| Altman Z-score | 5.28 (better) | 0.51 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.2% | 5.4% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 25.2% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 15.4% (better) | −21.2% |
| Buyback yield | 7.4% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 8.6% (better) | 5.4% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 104% | 105% |
| Held by insiders | 1.4% | 1.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$28.2M | −$1.9M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.1% | 10.1% |
Go deeper
- CSL stock overview
- CSL income statement
- CSL valuation and score
- NWL stock overview
- NWL income statement
- NWL valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.