Mosaic vs Scotts Miracle-Gro
MOS and SMG side by side, both in chemicals and allied products. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How MOS and SMG compare
Mosaic is the larger company, worth 1.9 times as much as Scotts Miracle-Gro ($7.2B against $3.8B).
Scotts Miracle-Gro grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (4.6% versus 0.02% for Mosaic).
Scotts Miracle-Gro keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 2.1% compared with −9.4% at Mosaic.
Both pay dividends: Mosaic yields 3.9% and Scotts Miracle-Gro 4.1%.
Scotts Miracle-Gro scores higher on the StockData Score (12 against 5 for Mosaic), 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 | MOS | SMG |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $7.2B | $3.8B |
| Share price | $22.80 | $65.04 |
| Change, 1 year | −11.9% | 14.2% |
| Change, 5 years | −37.1% | −60.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.81 | 1.30 |
| Employees | 13K | 5,200 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 5 | 12 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 1 |
| Dividend score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 53.8× |
| P/S | 0.6× (better) | 1.1× |
| P/B | 0.6× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 22.3× | 15.4× (better) |
| P/FCF | – | 14.4× |
| FCF yield | −11.2% | 7.0% (better) |
| Fair value | – | $51.84 |
| Margin of safety | – | −25.5% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 0.02% | 4.6% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.8% (better) | −3.7% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −191% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −191% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −0.58% (better) | −18.4% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 7.4% | 31.8% (better) |
| Operating margin | −5.1% | 11.0% (better) |
| Net margin | −9.4% | 2.1% (better) |
| FCF margin | −6.8% | 7.6% (better) |
| Return on equity | −9.3% | – |
| Return on invested capital | −2.9% | 12.3% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.48 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 9.12 | 5.45 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 3.4× |
| Current ratio | 1.50 (better) | 1.21 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.62 | 2.44 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 3.9% | 4.1% (better) |
| Payout ratio | – | 209% |
| Years of dividend growth | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 34.5% (better) | −18.5% |
| Buyback yield | – | 0.32% |
| Shareholder yield | 3.9% | 4.4% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 95.4% | 86.5% |
| Held by insiders | 0.31% | 53.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$509K (better) | −$5.4M |
| Short interest, % of float | 11.8% | 19.0% |
Go deeper
- MOS stock overview
- MOS income statement
- MOS valuation and score
- SMG stock overview
- SMG income statement
- SMG valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.