Howard Hughes vs Kimco Realty
HHH and KIM side by side, both in miscellaneous investing. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How HHH and KIM compare
Kimco Realty is the larger company, worth 3.4 times as much as Howard Hughes ($17.0B against $5.0B).
On earnings, Kimco Realty is cheaper: it trades at 23.9× trailing earnings, against 32.8× for Howard Hughes.
Howard Hughes grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (42.8% versus 3.5% for Kimco Realty).
Kimco Realty keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 34.1% compared with 6.5% at Howard Hughes.
Kimco Realty pays a dividend yielding 4.1%; Howard Hughes does not pay one.
Kimco Realty scores higher on the StockData Score (10 against 6 for Howard Hughes), 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 | HHH | KIM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $5.0B | $17.0B |
| Share price | $83.02 | $25.55 |
| Change, 1 year | −5.5% | 24.1% |
| Change, 5 years | −5.2% | 7.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.08 | 0.81 |
| Employees | 500 | 710 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 6 | 10 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 | 3 |
| Health score | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 32.8× | 23.9× (better) |
| P/S | 1.9× (better) | 7.7× |
| P/B | 1.2× (better) | 1.7× |
| EV/EBITDA | 3.2× (better) | 11.1× |
| Fair value | $84.89 | $24.75 |
| Margin of safety | 2.2% (better) | −3.2% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 42.8% (better) | 3.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | – | 15.1% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −37.5% | 24.8% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −50.7% | 28.9% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 18.1% | 40.1% (better) |
| Net margin | 6.5% | 34.1% (better) |
| Return on equity | 4.4% | 7.3% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 21.3% (better) | 8.8% |
| Financial health | ||
| Interest coverage | 2.6× (better) | 2.6× |
| Altman Z-score | 0.53 | 1.31 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 4.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 1 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 13.3% |
| Buyback yield | – | 1.9% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 6.0% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 90.6% | 100% |
| Held by insiders | 94.9% | 2.3% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $1.0M (better) | −$199K |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 182% | 5.2% |
Go deeper
- HHH stock overview
- HHH income statement
- HHH valuation and score
- KIM stock overview
- KIM income statement
- KIM valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.