Masco vs Newell Brands
MAS and NWL side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How MAS and NWL compare
Masco is the larger company, worth 7.2 times as much as Newell Brands ($15.9B against $2.2B).
Newell Brands grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (0.79% versus −0.56% for Masco).
Masco keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 11.6% compared with −4.4% at Newell Brands.
Both pay dividends: Masco yields 1.6% and Newell Brands 5.4%.
Masco scores higher on the StockData Score (15 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 | MAS | NWL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $15.9B | $2.2B |
| Share price | $80.64 | $5.18 |
| Change, 1 year | 23.6% | 5.1% |
| Change, 5 years | 25.7% | −78.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.02 | 1.20 |
| Employees | 18K | 22K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 (better) | 9 |
| Valuation score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 18.5× | – |
| P/S | 2.1× | 0.3× (better) |
| P/B | – | 0.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | 12.7× (better) | 17.3× |
| P/FCF | 14.1× (better) | 41.6× |
| PEG | 8.96 | – |
| FCF yield | 7.1% (better) | 2.4% |
| Fair value | $78.43 | $5.84 |
| Margin of safety | −2.8% | 11.2% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −0.56% | 0.79% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 1.0% (better) | −5.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 9.9% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 15.7% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −3.4% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 37.0% (better) | 35.6% |
| Operating margin | 17.5% (better) | 0.98% |
| Net margin | 11.6% (better) | −4.4% |
| FCF margin | 14.8% (better) | 0.72% |
| Return on equity | – | −12.8% |
| Return on invested capital | 42.2% (better) | 0.81% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 2.05 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.81 (better) | 11.58 |
| Interest coverage | 13.0× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.86 (better) | 1.27 |
| Altman Z-score | 4.05 (better) | 0.51 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.6% | 5.4% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 29.2% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 12 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 17.9% (better) | −21.2% |
| Buyback yield | 5.9% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 7.4% (better) | 5.4% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 102% | 105% |
| Held by insiders | 0.33% | 1.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$5.1M | −$1.9M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.2% | 10.1% |
Go deeper
- MAS stock overview
- MAS income statement
- MAS 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.