CSW Industrials vs WD 40
CSW and WDFC side by side, both in chemicals and allied products. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CSW and WDFC compare
CSW Industrials is the larger company, worth 1.5 times as much as WD 40 ($4.6B against $3.0B).
On earnings, CSW Industrials is cheaper: it trades at 36.4× trailing earnings, against 36.7× for WD 40.
CSW Industrials grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (30.0% versus 11.0% for WD 40).
WD 40 keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 12.0% compared with 10.2% at CSW Industrials.
Both pay dividends: CSW Industrials yields 0.31% and WD 40 1.8%.
WD 40 scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 10 for CSW Industrials), 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 | CSW | WDFC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $4.6B | $3.0B |
| Share price | $283.04 | $223.40 |
| Change, 1 year | 15.5% | 11.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 105% | −3.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.01 | 0.53 |
| Employees | 2,700 | 522 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 19 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 36.4× (better) | 36.7× |
| P/S | 3.7× (better) | 4.3× |
| P/B | – | 11.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | 25.2× (better) | 25.2× |
| P/FCF | 26.0× (better) | 30.7× |
| PEG | 13.89 | 4.61 (better) |
| FCF yield | 3.8% (better) | 3.3% |
| Fair value | $208.91 | $186.85 |
| Margin of safety | −35.5% | −19.6% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 30.0% (better) | 11.0% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 20.9% (better) | 7.1% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −11.2% | −9.5% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −8.7% (better) | −9.1% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 20.4% (better) | 3.6% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 42.1% | 55.3% (better) |
| Operating margin | 16.9% (better) | 15.8% |
| Net margin | 10.2% | 12.0% (better) |
| FCF margin | 14.2% | 14.2% (better) |
| Return on equity | – | 30.4% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 28.8% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.32 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.43 | 0.13 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 39.3× |
| Current ratio | 2.35 | 2.57 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.88 | 12.28 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 3 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.31% | 1.8% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 14.7% | 65.6% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 16 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 7.5% |
| Buyback yield | 3.2% (better) | 0.99% |
| Shareholder yield | 3.5% (better) | 2.8% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 101% | 87.8% |
| Held by insiders | 1.4% | 0.98% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$8.7M | −$12.3K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.3% | 3.6% |
Go deeper
- CSW stock overview
- CSW income statement
- CSW valuation and score
- WDFC stock overview
- WDFC income statement
- WDFC valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.