Packaging Corp of America vs Sylvamo
PKG 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 PKG and SLVM compare
Packaging Corp of America is the larger company, worth 18 times as much as Sylvamo ($22.9B against $1.3B).
On earnings, Sylvamo is cheaper: it trades at 17.2× trailing earnings, against 33.4× for Packaging Corp of America.
Packaging Corp of America grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (10.3% versus −7.1% for Sylvamo).
Packaging Corp of America keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 7.3% compared with 2.3% at Sylvamo.
Both pay dividends: Packaging Corp of America yields 2.1% and Sylvamo 5.6%.
Packaging Corp of America scores higher on the StockData Score (12 against 10 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 | PKG | SLVM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $22.9B | $1.3B |
| Share price | $256.82 | $32.24 |
| Change, 1 year | 30.6% | −22.8% |
| Change, 5 years | 89.7% | 14.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.65 | 0.69 |
| Employees | 17K | 6,500 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 12 (better) | 10 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 3 | 3 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 33.4× | 17.2× (better) |
| P/S | 2.4× | 0.4× (better) |
| P/B | 4.9× | 1.3× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.5× | 5.8× (better) |
| P/FCF | 30.8× | – |
| PEG | – | 2.54 |
| FCF yield | 3.2% (better) | −0.86% |
| Fair value | $154.51 | $50.15 |
| Margin of safety | −66.2% | 35.7% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 10.3% (better) | −7.1% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.2% | 7.0% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −23.5% (better) | −65.1% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −23.2% (better) | −64.2% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 12.1% (better) | −3.4% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 20.1% | 20.6% (better) |
| Operating margin | 10.9% (better) | 5.3% |
| Net margin | 7.3% (better) | 2.3% |
| FCF margin | 7.8% (better) | −0.33% |
| Return on equity | 14.9% (better) | 7.9% |
| Return on invested capital | 10.9% (better) | 5.7% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.85 (better) | 0.93 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.86 (better) | 2.15 |
| Interest coverage | – | 3.4× |
| Current ratio | 2.94 (better) | 1.47 |
| Altman Z-score | 4.09 (better) | 3.10 |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.1% | 5.6% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 64.8% | 96.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 8.2% | – |
| Buyback yield | – | 3.3% |
| Shareholder yield | 2.1% | 8.9% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 98.1% | 99.7% |
| Held by insiders | 1.7% | 17.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$15.0M | −$801K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.4% | 8.8% |
Go deeper
- PKG stock overview
- PKG income statement
- PKG valuation and score
- SLVM stock overview
- SLVM income statement
- SLVM valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.