Quaker Chemical vs Valvoline
KWR and VVV side by side, both in petroleum refining and related industries. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How KWR and VVV compare
Valvoline is the larger company, worth 1.6 times as much as Quaker Chemical ($4.1B against $2.6B).
On earnings, Quaker Chemical is cheaper: it trades at 26.9× trailing earnings, against 40.9× for Valvoline.
Valvoline grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (16.1% versus 8.7% for Quaker Chemical).
Valvoline keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 5.2% compared with 4.8% at Quaker Chemical.
Quaker Chemical pays a dividend yielding 1.4%; Valvoline does not pay one.
Quaker Chemical scores higher on the StockData Score (11 against 9 for Valvoline), 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 | KWR | VVV |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $2.6B | $4.1B |
| Share price | $150.95 | $32.29 |
| Change, 1 year | 15.7% | −1.3% |
| Change, 5 years | −44.2% | −5.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.44 | 0.81 |
| Employees | 4,700 | 11K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 11 (better) | 9 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 26.9× (better) | 40.9× |
| P/S | 1.3× (better) | 2.1× |
| P/B | 1.8× (better) | 9.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.8× (better) | 18.7× |
| P/FCF | 65.9× | 30.4× (better) |
| FCF yield | 1.5% | 3.3% (better) |
| Fair value | $155.70 | $19.95 |
| Margin of safety | 3.1% (better) | −61.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 8.7% | 16.1% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 5.9% | 18.7% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | −63.5% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | −63.3% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | −0.60% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 35.8% | 38.3% (better) |
| Operating margin | 7.6% | 15.3% (better) |
| Net margin | 4.8% | 5.2% (better) |
| FCF margin | 1.9% | 6.9% (better) |
| Return on equity | 7.0% | 27.8% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 5.2% | 10.9% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.63 (better) | 3.84 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.23 (better) | 5.04 |
| Interest coverage | 3.8× | – |
| Current ratio | 2.47 (better) | 0.70 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.48 (better) | 1.75 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.4% | – |
| Payout ratio | 36.2% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 5.0% | – |
| Buyback yield | – | 0.00% |
| Shareholder yield | 1.4% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 91.9% | 117% |
| Held by insiders | 22.4% | 0.33% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$208K | $308K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 13.1% | 12.1% |
Go deeper
- KWR stock overview
- KWR income statement
- KWR valuation and score
- VVV stock overview
- VVV income statement
- VVV valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.