RPM International vs Sherwin Williams
RPM and SHW side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How RPM and SHW compare
Sherwin Williams is the larger company, worth 6.2 times as much as RPM International ($80.7B against $13.1B).
On earnings, RPM International is cheaper: it trades at 19.0× trailing earnings, against 30.7× for Sherwin Williams.
RPM International grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.0% versus 5.8% for Sherwin Williams).
Sherwin Williams keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 11.0% compared with 8.7% at RPM International.
Both pay dividends: RPM International yields 1.6% and Sherwin Williams 0.96%.
RPM International scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 15 for Sherwin Williams), 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 | RPM | SHW |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $13.1B | $80.7B |
| Share price | $102.44 | $332.61 |
| Change, 1 year | −5.5% | −3.8% |
| Change, 5 years | 14.1% | 4.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.91 | 0.91 |
| Employees | 18K | 64K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 18 (better) | 15 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 5 | 5 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 19.0× (better) | 30.7× |
| P/S | 1.6× (better) | 3.3× |
| P/B | 3.8× (better) | 20.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | 12.3× | – |
| P/FCF | 18.5× (better) | 25.1× |
| PEG | 1.64 (better) | 3.08 |
| FCF yield | 5.4% (better) | 4.0% |
| Fair value | $115.92 | $233.43 |
| Margin of safety | 11.6% (better) | −42.5% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.0% (better) | 5.8% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 5.2% (better) | 5.1% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 0.22% | 5.6% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 0.93% | 7.6% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 6.0% | 6.9% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 41.2% | 49.0% (better) |
| Net margin | 8.7% | 11.0% (better) |
| FCF margin | 8.9% | 13.2% (better) |
| Return on equity | 21.1% | 65.1% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.69 (better) | 3.13 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.70 | – |
| Current ratio | 1.76 (better) | 0.73 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.47 (better) | 2.99 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.6% (better) | 0.96% |
| Payout ratio | 39.9% | 29.2% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 16 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 12.1% |
| Buyback yield | 0.63% | 3.2% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 2.2% | 4.2% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 85.4% | 83.1% |
| Held by insiders | 1.3% | 0.32% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$465K (better) | −$9.7M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 4 |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.0% | 2.9% |
Go deeper
- RPM stock overview
- RPM income statement
- RPM valuation and score
- SHW stock overview
- SHW income statement
- SHW valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.