Matson vs Norwegian Cruise Line
MATX and NCLH side by side, both in water transportation. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How MATX and NCLH compare
Norwegian Cruise Line is the larger company, worth 1.3 times as much as Matson ($8.3B against $6.4B).
On earnings, Norwegian Cruise Line is cheaper: it trades at 9.9× trailing earnings, against 12.0× for Matson.
Matson grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (9.2% versus 4.9% for Norwegian Cruise Line).
Matson keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 14.6% compared with 8.2% at Norwegian Cruise Line.
Matson pays a dividend yielding 0.52%; Norwegian Cruise Line does not pay one.
Matson scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 6 for Norwegian Cruise Line), 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 | MATX | NCLH |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $6.4B | $8.3B |
| Share price | $212.64 | $18.06 |
| Change, 1 year | 96.1% | −4.0% |
| Change, 5 years | 135% | −21.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.93 | 1.71 |
| Employees | 4,170 | 5,300 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 17 (better) | 6 |
| Valuation score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 12.0× | 9.9× (better) |
| P/S | 1.7× | 0.8× (better) |
| P/B | 2.2× (better) | 2.6× |
| EV/EBITDA | 10.5× | 8.8× (better) |
| FCF yield | – | −6.8% |
| Fair value | $159.35 | $21.05 |
| Margin of safety | −33.4% | 14.2% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 9.2% (better) | 4.9% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.0% | 50.3% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 25.3% | 25.5% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 34.2% | 36.8% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 25.5% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 41.4% |
| Operating margin | 16.8% (better) | 13.8% |
| Net margin | 14.6% (better) | 8.2% |
| FCF margin | – | −5.6% |
| Return on equity | 19.2% | 31.2% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 17.0% (better) | 8.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.12 (better) | 4.79 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.23 (better) | 5.66 |
| Interest coverage | 96.8× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.10 (better) | 0.22 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.91 (better) | 0.36 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.52% | – |
| Payout ratio | 8.3% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 12 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 9.2% | – |
| Buyback yield | 4.1% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 4.6% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 87.0% | 102% |
| Held by insiders | 2.5% | 1.3% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$28.5M | $29.1M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 3 |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.0% | 18.2% |
Go deeper
- MATX stock overview
- MATX income statement
- MATX valuation and score
- NCLH stock overview
- NCLH income statement
- NCLH valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.