Cintas vs PVH
CTAS and PVH side by side, both in apparel and other finished products made from fabrics and similar materials. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CTAS and PVH compare
Cintas is the larger company, worth 21 times as much as PVH ($88.0B against $4.2B).
Cintas grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (9.5% versus 1.6% for PVH).
Cintas keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 17.8% compared with −1.9% at PVH.
Both pay dividends: Cintas yields 0.85% and PVH 0.17%.
Cintas scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 7 for PVH), 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 | CTAS | PVH |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $88.0B | $4.2B |
| Share price | $219.82 | $90.19 |
| Change, 1 year | 19.5% | 12.0% |
| Change, 5 years | 99.0% | −26.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.90 | 1.42 |
| Employees | 48K | 26K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 19 (better) | 7 |
| Valuation score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 43.4× | – |
| P/S | 7.6× | 0.5× (better) |
| P/B | 16.9× | 0.9× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 28.0× | 8.8× (better) |
| P/FCF | 43.3× | 5.8× (better) |
| PEG | 2.94 | – |
| FCF yield | 2.3% | 17.2% (better) |
| Fair value | $148.64 | $105.47 |
| Margin of safety | −47.9% | 14.5% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 9.5% (better) | 1.6% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 9.6% (better) | 4.6% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 11.3% (better) | −136% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 12.4% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 13.9% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 51.0% | 58.8% (better) |
| Operating margin | 23.4% (better) | 4.1% |
| Net margin | 17.8% (better) | −1.9% |
| FCF margin | 17.6% (better) | 8.0% |
| Return on equity | 41.4% (better) | −3.5% |
| Return on invested capital | 29.7% (better) | 2.8% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.47 (better) | 0.47 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.68 (better) | 2.07 |
| Interest coverage | 25.3× (better) | 4.0× |
| Current ratio | 1.45 | 1.65 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 13.51 (better) | 2.16 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.85% (better) | 0.17% |
| Payout ratio | 35.2% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 7.5% | 32.0% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 1.1% (better) | 0.42% |
| Shareholder yield | 2.0% (better) | 0.59% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 68.2% | 111% |
| Held by insiders | 14.4% | 1.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$3.6M | $358K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.7% | 10.8% |
Go deeper
- CTAS stock overview
- CTAS income statement
- CTAS valuation and score
- PVH stock overview
- PVH income statement
- PVH valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.