Karat Packaging vs Newell Brands
KRT and NWL side by side, both in miscellaneous plastics products. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How KRT and NWL compare
Newell Brands is the larger company, worth 2.1 times as much as Karat Packaging ($2.2B against $1.1B).
Karat Packaging grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (11.6% versus 0.79% for Newell Brands).
Karat Packaging keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 10.2% compared with −4.4% at Newell Brands.
Both pay dividends: Karat Packaging yields 3.4% and Newell Brands 5.4%.
Karat Packaging scores higher on the StockData Score (20 against 9 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 | KRT | NWL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.1B | $2.2B |
| Share price | $53.97 | $5.18 |
| Change, 1 year | 120% | 5.1% |
| Change, 5 years | 135% | −78.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.72 | 1.20 |
| Employees | 696 | 22K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 20 (better) | 9 |
| Valuation score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 21.6× | – |
| P/S | 2.2× | 0.3× (better) |
| P/B | 6.5× | 0.9× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.1× (better) | 17.3× |
| P/FCF | 19.4× (better) | 41.6× |
| PEG | 2.29 | – |
| FCF yield | 5.2% (better) | 2.4% |
| Fair value | $47.49 | $5.84 |
| Margin of safety | −13.6% | 11.2% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 11.6% (better) | 0.79% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 9.6% (better) | −5.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 56.6% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 57.2% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 6.7% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 40.7% (better) | 35.6% |
| Operating margin | 12.8% (better) | 0.98% |
| Net margin | 10.2% (better) | −4.4% |
| FCF margin | 11.3% (better) | 0.72% |
| Return on equity | 31.2% (better) | −12.8% |
| Return on invested capital | 42.7% (better) | 0.81% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.07 (better) | 2.05 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.57 | 11.58 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 33.9× | – |
| Current ratio | 2.25 (better) | 1.27 |
| Altman Z-score | 7.52 (better) | 0.51 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 3.4% | 5.4% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 71.7% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 114% (better) | −21.2% |
| Shareholder yield | 3.4% | 5.4% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 35.7% | 105% |
| Held by insiders | 57.4% | 1.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$569K (better) | −$1.9M |
| Short interest, % of float | 7.0% | 10.1% |
Go deeper
- KRT stock overview
- KRT income statement
- KRT valuation and score
- NWL stock overview
- NWL income statement
- NWL valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.