Mativ vs Sylvamo
MATV and SLVM side by side, both in paper and allied products. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How MATV and SLVM compare
Sylvamo is the larger company, worth 2.3 times as much as Mativ ($1.5B against $663M).
Sylvamo grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (12.4% versus −0.43% for Mativ).
Mativ keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 4.6% compared with −4.9% at Sylvamo.
Both pay dividends: Mativ yields 3.3% and Sylvamo 4.7%.
Mativ scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 8 for Sylvamo), 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 | MATV | SLVM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $663M | $1.5B |
| Share price | $12.01 | $38.57 |
| Change, 1 year | −8.6% | −17.8% |
| Change, 5 years | −62.9% | 21.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.20 | 0.63 |
| Employees | 5,000 | 6,500 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 (better) | 8 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 1 | 1 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 7.3× | – |
| P/S | 0.3× (better) | 0.4× |
| P/B | 1.4× (better) | 2.1× |
| EV/EBITDA | 7.3× (better) | 8.0× |
| P/FCF | 6.7× | – |
| FCF yield | 14.9% (better) | −3.4% |
| Fair value | $22.44 | $59.76 |
| Margin of safety | 46.5% (better) | 35.5% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −0.43% | 12.4% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 13.1% (better) | 7.0% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | −200% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | −204% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | −3.4% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 19.4% (better) | 17.8% |
| Operating margin | 3.7% (better) | 2.8% |
| Net margin | 4.6% (better) | −4.9% |
| FCF margin | 5.0% (better) | −1.4% |
| Return on equity | 21.2% (better) | −21.0% |
| Return on invested capital | 4.3% | 4.8% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 2.09 | 1.22 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.19 | 2.77 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 1.0× | 1.7× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.93 (better) | 1.29 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.39 | 2.96 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 3.3% | 4.7% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 24.6% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | −25.6% | – |
| Buyback yield | – | 0.00% |
| Shareholder yield | 3.3% | 4.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 93.9% | 99.7% |
| Held by insiders | 2.3% | 17.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | – | −$658K |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.6% | 7.9% |
Go deeper
- MATV stock overview
- MATV income statement
- MATV valuation and score
- SLVM stock overview
- SLVM income statement
- SLVM valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.