Goodyear Tire & Rubber vs Sherwin Williams
GT and SHW side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How GT and SHW compare
Sherwin Williams is the larger company, worth 71 times as much as Goodyear Tire & Rubber ($84.5B against $1.2B).
Sherwin Williams grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (7.0% versus −3.9% for Goodyear Tire & Rubber).
Sherwin Williams keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 10.7% compared with −3.3% at Goodyear Tire & Rubber.
Sherwin Williams pays a dividend yielding 0.91%; Goodyear Tire & Rubber does not pay one.
Sherwin Williams scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 4 for Goodyear Tire & Rubber), 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 | GT | SHW |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.2B | $84.5B |
| Share price | $4.12 | $349.89 |
| Change, 1 year | −46.7% | 1.5% |
| Change, 5 years | −81.1% | 5.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.31 | 0.90 |
| Employees | 63K | 64K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 4 | 14 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 32.2× |
| P/S | 0.1× (better) | 3.4× |
| P/B | 0.5× (better) | 21.3× |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.0× | – |
| P/FCF | 13.2× (better) | 27.5× |
| PEG | – | 3.23 |
| FCF yield | 7.6% (better) | 3.6% |
| Fair value | $13.02 | $234.30 |
| Margin of safety | 68.3% (better) | −49.3% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −3.9% | 7.0% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 8.2% (better) | 5.1% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 4.1% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 6.1% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 6.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 17.8% | 48.6% (better) |
| Net margin | −3.3% | 10.7% (better) |
| FCF margin | 0.51% | 12.4% (better) |
| Return on equity | −20.8% | 63.7% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 2.80 (better) | 2.97 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 6.62 | – |
| Current ratio | 1.12 (better) | 0.71 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.25 | 3.14 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.00% | 0.91% (better) |
| Payout ratio | – | 29.3% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 16 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 12.1% |
| Buyback yield | – | 2.9% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 3.8% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 93.9% | 83.5% |
| Held by insiders | 0.74% | 0.32% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $0 (better) | −$12.7M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 19.7% | 2.5% |
Go deeper
- GT stock overview
- GT income statement
- GT valuation and score
- SHW stock overview
- SHW income statement
- SHW valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.