Pool vs SiteOne Landscape Supply
POOL and SITE side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How POOL and SITE compare
Pool is the larger company, worth 1.5 times as much as SiteOne Landscape Supply ($7.5B against $4.8B).
On earnings, Pool is cheaper: it trades at 18.9× trailing earnings, against 30.4× for SiteOne Landscape Supply.
SiteOne Landscape Supply grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (3.3% versus 2.2% for Pool).
Pool keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 7.4% compared with 3.4% at SiteOne Landscape Supply.
Pool pays a dividend yielding 2.5%; SiteOne Landscape Supply does not pay one.
Pool scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 13 for SiteOne Landscape Supply), 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 | POOL | SITE |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $7.5B | $4.8B |
| Share price | $205.95 | $110.87 |
| Change, 1 year | −27.4% | −16.1% |
| Change, 5 years | −60.2% | −54.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.98 | 1.41 |
| Employees | 6,000 | 8,200 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 19 (better) | 13 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 3 | 3 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 18.9× (better) | 30.4× |
| P/S | 1.4× | 1.0× (better) |
| P/B | 5.9× | 2.9× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 15.2× (better) | 20.9× |
| P/FCF | 24.9× | 18.7× (better) |
| FCF yield | 4.0% | 5.4% (better) |
| Fair value | $224.30 | $97.93 |
| Margin of safety | 8.2% (better) | −13.2% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 2.2% | 3.3% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.1% | 11.7% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −2.6% | 30.9% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 0.28% | 33.2% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 3.9% | 4.2% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 29.6% | 35.1% (better) |
| Operating margin | 10.8% (better) | 5.3% |
| Net margin | 7.4% (better) | 3.4% |
| FCF margin | 5.6% (better) | 5.4% |
| Return on equity | 31.3% (better) | 9.8% |
| Return on invested capital | 17.4% (better) | 9.5% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.06 | 0.30 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.26 | 1.66 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 7.1× |
| Current ratio | 2.67 (better) | 2.30 |
| Altman Z-score | 4.37 (better) | 4.06 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.5% | – |
| Payout ratio | 46.4% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 15 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 16.7% | – |
| Buyback yield | 3.6% (better) | 3.0% |
| Shareholder yield | 6.1% (better) | 3.0% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 110% | 108% |
| Held by insiders | 3.4% | 1.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $5.7M (better) | $879K |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 10.4% | 8.9% |
Go deeper
- POOL stock overview
- POOL income statement
- POOL valuation and score
- SITE stock overview
- SITE income statement
- SITE valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.