Darling Ingredients vs Lamb Weston
DAR and LW side by side, both in food and kindred products. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How DAR and LW compare
Darling Ingredients is the larger company, worth 1.2 times as much as Lamb Weston ($8.8B against $7.4B).
On earnings, Darling Ingredients is cheaper: it trades at 15.0× trailing earnings, against 29.4× for Lamb Weston.
Darling Ingredients grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (14.9% versus 2.6% for Lamb Weston).
Darling Ingredients keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 9.1% compared with 3.8% at Lamb Weston.
Lamb Weston pays a dividend yielding 2.8%; Darling Ingredients does not pay one.
Darling Ingredients scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 12 for Lamb Weston), 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 | DAR | LW |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $8.8B | $7.4B |
| Share price | $55.73 | $54.08 |
| Change, 1 year | 66.5% | −14.4% |
| Change, 5 years | −34.3% | −6.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.62 | 0.52 |
| Employees | 15K | 10K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 (better) | 12 |
| Valuation score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 15.0× (better) | 29.4× |
| P/S | 1.3× | 1.1× (better) |
| P/B | 1.7× (better) | 4.1× |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.6× (better) | 12.2× |
| P/FCF | – | 18.1× |
| FCF yield | – | 5.5% |
| Fair value | $71.44 | $61.63 |
| Margin of safety | 22.0% (better) | 12.3% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 14.9% (better) | 2.6% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 11.4% | 12.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 468% (better) | −13.4% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 462% (better) | −12.0% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −26.2% | −0.75% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 26.3% (better) | 19.4% |
| Operating margin | 14.5% (better) | 7.8% |
| Net margin | 9.1% (better) | 3.8% |
| FCF margin | – | 6.2% |
| Return on equity | 12.1% | 14.2% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 8.9% (better) | 6.7% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.75 (better) | 2.17 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.57 (better) | 4.09 |
| Interest coverage | 4.3× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.56 (better) | 1.45 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.47 | 2.61 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 2.8% |
| Payout ratio | – | 81.6% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 10 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 10.0% |
| Buyback yield | 0.80% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 0.80% | 2.8% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 106% | 94.8% |
| Held by insiders | 1.5% | 10.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$5.2M | $19.4M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.5% | 5.8% |
Go deeper
- DAR stock overview
- DAR income statement
- DAR valuation and score
- LW stock overview
- LW income statement
- LW valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.