Kimberly Clark vs Newell Brands
KMB and NWL side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How KMB and NWL compare
Kimberly Clark is the larger company, worth 15 times as much as Newell Brands ($36.4B against $2.5B).
Newell Brands grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (0.79% versus 0.58% for Kimberly Clark).
Kimberly Clark keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 19.9% compared with −4.4% at Newell Brands.
Both pay dividends: Kimberly Clark yields 4.7% and Newell Brands 4.8%.
Kimberly Clark scores higher on the StockData Score (22 against 7 for Newell Brands), 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 | NWL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $36.4B | $2.5B |
| Share price | $109.43 | $5.78 |
| Change, 1 year | 5.1% | 72.0% |
| Change, 5 years | −18.6% | −74.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.33 | 1.20 |
| Employees | 36K | 22K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 22 (better) | 7 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 11.0× | – |
| P/S | 2.2× | 0.3× (better) |
| P/B | 12.4× | 1.0× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 13.1× (better) | 18.0× |
| P/FCF | 18.7× (better) | 46.5× |
| PEG | 5.52 | – |
| FCF yield | 5.3% (better) | 2.2% |
| Fair value | $148.57 | $5.67 |
| Margin of safety | 26.3% (better) | −1.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 0.58% | 0.79% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −3.0% (better) | −5.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 67.7% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 67.7% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −2.4% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 36.5% (better) | 35.6% |
| Operating margin | 14.5% (better) | 0.98% |
| Net margin | 19.9% (better) | −4.4% |
| FCF margin | 11.7% (better) | 0.72% |
| Return on equity | 155% (better) | −12.8% |
| Return on invested capital | 22.7% (better) | 0.81% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 2.21 | 2.05 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.47 (better) | 11.58 |
| Interest coverage | 11.0× | – |
| Current ratio | 0.89 | 1.27 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.71 (better) | 0.53 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 4.7% | 4.8% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 51.1% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 6 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 3.3% (better) | −21.2% |
| Buyback yield | 0.00% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 4.7% | 4.8% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 96.9% | 105% |
| Held by insiders | 0.24% | 1.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $33.8K (better) | −$1.9M |
| Short interest, % of float | 15.9% | 9.4% |
Go deeper
- KMB stock overview
- KMB income statement
- KMB valuation and score
- NWL stock overview
- NWL income statement
- NWL valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.