Karat Packaging vs Latham
KRT and SWIM 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 SWIM compare
Latham is the larger company, worth 1.4 times as much as Karat Packaging ($989M against $732M).
On earnings, Karat Packaging is cheaper: it trades at 15.6× trailing earnings, against 105× for Latham.
Latham grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (11.9% versus 11.0% for Karat Packaging).
Karat Packaging keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 9.4% compared with 1.6% at Latham.
Karat Packaging pays a dividend yielding 5.0%; Latham does not pay one.
Karat Packaging scores higher on the StockData Score (24 against 8 for Latham), 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 | SWIM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $732M | $989M |
| Share price | $36.75 | $8.41 |
| Change, 1 year | 66.2% | 25.0% |
| Change, 5 years | 75.0% | −62.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.80 | 1.89 |
| Employees | 696 | 1,804 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 24 (better) | 8 |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 3 | 3 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 6 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 15.6× (better) | 105× |
| P/S | 1.5× (better) | 1.7× |
| P/B | 4.5× | 2.3× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 10.3× (better) | 14.0× |
| P/FCF | 11.4× (better) | 21.3× |
| PEG | 1.65 | – |
| FCF yield | 8.8% (better) | 4.7% |
| Fair value | $44.98 | $5.52 |
| Margin of safety | 18.3% (better) | −52.5% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 11.0% | 11.9% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 9.6% (better) | 6.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 56.1% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 57.3% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 6.7% (better) | −10.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 40.3% (better) | 33.8% |
| Operating margin | 11.8% (better) | 5.3% |
| Net margin | 9.4% (better) | 1.6% |
| FCF margin | 12.8% (better) | 7.8% |
| Return on equity | 29.8% (better) | 2.2% |
| Return on invested capital | 33.0% (better) | 5.0% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.14 (better) | 0.69 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.29 | 2.33 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 34.1× (better) | 1.4× |
| Current ratio | 1.83 | 2.38 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 6.22 (better) | 2.19 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 5.0% | – |
| Payout ratio | 76.9% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 3 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 114% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 5.0% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 35.7% | 92.6% |
| Held by insiders | 57.4% | 17.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$593K | $316K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 7.8% | 4.4% |
Go deeper
- KRT stock overview
- KRT income statement
- KRT valuation and score
- SWIM stock overview
- SWIM income statement
- SWIM valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.