Steven Madden vs Wolverine World Wide
SHOO and WWW side by side, both in consumer discretionary. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How SHOO and WWW compare
Steven Madden is the larger company, worth 1.9 times as much as Wolverine World Wide ($3.2B against $1.7B).
Steven Madden grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (18.2% versus 7.2% for Wolverine World Wide).
Both pay dividends: Steven Madden yields 1.9% and Wolverine World Wide 1.9%.
Wolverine World Wide scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 10 for Steven Madden), 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 | SHOO | WWW |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.2B | $1.7B |
| Share price | $43.50 | $20.80 |
| Change, 1 year | 26.4% | −10.7% |
| Change, 5 years | −12.6% | −44.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.16 | 1.33 |
| Employees | 6,300 | – |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 16 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 4 | 4 |
| Dividend score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 16.3× |
| P/S | 1.2× | 0.9× (better) |
| P/B | 3.4× (better) | 3.8× |
| EV/EBITDA | 13.7× | 10.9× (better) |
| P/FCF | 14.2× | 9.8× (better) |
| FCF yield | 7.0% | 10.3% (better) |
| Fair value | $31.98 | $20.18 |
| Margin of safety | −36.0% | −3.1% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 18.2% (better) | 7.2% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 16.1% (better) | 0.91% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 27.1% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 24.3% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 46.1% | 47.1% (better) |
| Operating margin | 7.5% | 8.7% (better) |
| Net margin | – | 5.5% |
| FCF margin | 8.2% | 9.0% (better) |
| Return on equity | – | 27.1% |
| Return on invested capital | 15.1% | 16.8% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.13 (better) | 1.22 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.51 (better) | 2.01 |
| Current ratio | 1.91 (better) | 1.55 |
| Altman Z-score | 5.76 (better) | 3.26 |
| Piotroski F-score | – | 8 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.9% (better) | 1.9% |
| Payout ratio | – | 31.0% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 41.1% (better) | 0.00% |
| Buyback yield | 0.43% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 2.4% (better) | 1.9% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 100% | 103% |
| Held by insiders | 2.3% | 1.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$4.0M | −$763K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.3% | 7.4% |
Go deeper
- SHOO stock overview
- SHOO income statement
- SHOO valuation and score
- WWW stock overview
- WWW income statement
- WWW valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.