Carlisle Companies vs Owens Corning
CSL and OC side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CSL and OC compare
Carlisle Companies is the larger company, worth 1.6 times as much as Owens Corning ($14.9B against $9.6B).
Carlisle Companies grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (1.9% versus −7.2% for Owens Corning).
Carlisle Companies keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 14.2% compared with −6.8% at Owens Corning.
Both pay dividends: Carlisle Companies yields 1.2% and Owens Corning 2.6%.
Carlisle Companies scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 6 for Owens Corning), 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 | OC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $14.9B | $9.6B |
| Share price | $376.31 | $121.15 |
| Change, 1 year | 13.6% | −2.8% |
| Change, 5 years | 61.3% | 27.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.92 | 1.25 |
| Employees | 5,900 | 25K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 (better) | 6 |
| Valuation score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 21.6× | – |
| P/S | 2.9× | 1.0× (better) |
| P/B | 9.2× | 2.5× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.1× (better) | 17.9× |
| P/FCF | 17.2× | 10.7× (better) |
| FCF yield | 5.8% | 9.4% (better) |
| Fair value | $355.93 | $76.61 |
| Margin of safety | −5.7% (better) | −58.1% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 1.9% (better) | −7.2% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.8% | 7.4% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −10.1% (better) | −302% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −2.7% (better) | −311% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 24.2% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 35.3% (better) | 26.0% |
| Operating margin | 19.9% (better) | 0.51% |
| Net margin | 14.2% (better) | −6.8% |
| FCF margin | 17.0% (better) | 9.1% |
| Return on equity | 38.8% (better) | −15.0% |
| Return on invested capital | 20.2% (better) | 0.43% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.79 | 1.14 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.83 (better) | 5.28 |
| Interest coverage | 9.7× (better) | 0.1× |
| Current ratio | 2.60 (better) | 1.16 |
| Altman Z-score | 5.28 (better) | 1.97 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.2% | 2.6% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 25.2% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 (better) | 12 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 15.4% | 23.9% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 7.4% (better) | 7.1% |
| Shareholder yield | 8.6% | 9.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 104% | 106% |
| Held by insiders | 1.4% | 1.3% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$28.2M | −$447K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.1% | 3.1% |
Go deeper
- CSL stock overview
- CSL income statement
- CSL valuation and score
- OC stock overview
- OC income statement
- OC valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.