Newell Brands vs Williams Sonoma
NWL and WSM side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How NWL and WSM compare
Williams Sonoma is the larger company, worth 13 times as much as Newell Brands ($29.8B against $2.2B).
Williams Sonoma grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (2.2% versus 0.79% for Newell Brands).
Williams Sonoma keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 14.7% compared with −4.4% at Newell Brands.
Both pay dividends: Newell Brands yields 5.4% and Williams Sonoma 1.2%.
Williams Sonoma scores higher on the StockData Score (18 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 | NWL | WSM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $2.2B | $29.8B |
| Share price | $5.18 | $252.72 |
| Change, 1 year | 5.1% | 29.3% |
| Change, 5 years | −78.5% | 144% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.20 | 1.42 |
| Employees | 22K | 20K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 18 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 0 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 25.9× |
| P/S | 0.3× (better) | 3.7× |
| P/B | 0.9× (better) | 13.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | 17.3× | 16.2× (better) |
| P/FCF | 41.6× | 22.2× (better) |
| PEG | – | 9.57 |
| FCF yield | 2.4% | 4.5% (better) |
| Fair value | $5.84 | $153.08 |
| Margin of safety | 11.2% (better) | −65.1% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 0.79% | 2.2% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −5.2% | 2.9% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 4.6% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 8.6% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 15.5% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 35.6% | 47.2% (better) |
| Operating margin | 0.98% | 19.2% (better) |
| Net margin | −4.4% | 14.7% (better) |
| FCF margin | 0.72% | 16.8% (better) |
| Return on equity | −12.8% | 55.0% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 0.81% | 101% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 2.05 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 11.58 | – |
| Current ratio | 1.27 | 1.45 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 0.51 | 8.28 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 5.4% (better) | 1.2% |
| Payout ratio | – | 28.5% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 15 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | −21.2% | 21.2% (better) |
| Buyback yield | – | 2.9% |
| Shareholder yield | 5.4% (better) | 4.0% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 105% | 96.1% |
| Held by insiders | 1.4% | 1.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$1.9M (better) | −$49.4M |
| Short interest, % of float | 10.1% | 4.7% |
Go deeper
- NWL stock overview
- NWL income statement
- NWL valuation and score
- WSM stock overview
- WSM income statement
- WSM valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.