Kimberly Clark vs Kenvue
KMB and KVUE side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How KMB and KVUE compare
Kimberly Clark and Kenvue are about the same size, with market caps of $35.9B and $37.1B.
On earnings, Kimberly Clark is cheaper: it trades at 18.4× trailing earnings, against 21.9× for Kenvue.
Kenvue grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (3.5% versus 0.71% for Kimberly Clark).
Kimberly Clark keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 11.8% compared with 10.9% at Kenvue.
Both pay dividends: Kimberly Clark yields 4.7% and Kenvue 5.4%.
Kimberly Clark scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 15 for Kenvue), 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 | KMB | KVUE |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $35.9B | $37.1B |
| Share price | $107.94 | $19.31 |
| Change, 1 year | −7.5% | 34.9% |
| Change, 5 years | −18.4% | – |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.33 | 0.17 |
| Employees | 36K | 22K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 19 (better) | 15 |
| Valuation score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 18.4× (better) | 21.9× |
| P/S | 2.2× (better) | 2.4× |
| P/B | 20.5× | 3.6× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 12.8× | 11.3× (better) |
| P/FCF | 19.7× | 15.9× (better) |
| PEG | 9.18 | – |
| FCF yield | 5.1% | 6.3% (better) |
| Fair value | $109.03 | $21.09 |
| Margin of safety | 1.0% | 8.5% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 0.71% | 3.5% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −3.0% | – |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −19.5% | 17.9% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −19.0% | 17.3% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −2.4% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 36.8% | 58.3% (better) |
| Operating margin | 15.2% | 17.4% (better) |
| Net margin | 11.8% (better) | 10.9% |
| FCF margin | 11.0% | 15.1% (better) |
| Return on equity | 129% (better) | 16.3% |
| Return on invested capital | 22.3% (better) | 18.3% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 3.72 | 0.11 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.72 | 0.03 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 10.7× (better) | 6.4× |
| Current ratio | 0.91 | 0.96 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.33 (better) | 2.23 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 4.7% | 5.4% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 85.9% | 94.5% |
| Years of dividend growth | 6 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 3.3% | – |
| Buyback yield | 0.06% (better) | 0.00% |
| Shareholder yield | 4.8% | 5.4% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 96.9% | 94.4% |
| Held by insiders | 0.22% | 1.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $33.8K | $110M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 3 |
| Short interest, % of float | 16.0% | 3.0% |
Go deeper
- KMB stock overview
- KMB income statement
- KMB valuation and score
- KVUE stock overview
- KVUE income statement
- KVUE valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.