Sherwin Williams vs Tractor Supply
SHW and TSCO side by side, both in consumer discretionary. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How SHW and TSCO compare
Sherwin Williams is the larger company, worth 4.6 times as much as Tractor Supply ($80.7B against $17.7B).
Sherwin Williams grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.8% versus 4.0% for Tractor Supply).
Tractor Supply keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 11.9% compared with 11.0% at Sherwin Williams.
Both pay dividends: Sherwin Williams yields 0.96% and Tractor Supply 2.8%.
Tractor Supply scores higher on the StockData Score (19 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 | SHW | TSCO |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $80.7B | $17.7B |
| Share price | $332.61 | $33.94 |
| Change, 1 year | −3.8% | −37.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 4.3% | −22.9% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.91 | 0.70 |
| Employees | 64K | 52K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 | 19 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 4 | 4 |
| Performance score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 30.7× | – |
| P/S | 3.3× | 1.1× (better) |
| P/B | 20.9× | 6.7× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 10.6× |
| P/FCF | 25.1× (better) | 57.6× |
| PEG | 3.08 | – |
| FCF yield | 4.0% (better) | 1.7% |
| Fair value | $233.43 | $35.05 |
| Margin of safety | −42.5% | 3.2% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.8% (better) | 4.0% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 5.1% | 7.9% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 5.6% | 73.0% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 7.6% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 6.9% | 10.1% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 49.0% (better) | 36.5% |
| Operating margin | – | 8.5% |
| Net margin | 11.0% | 11.9% (better) |
| FCF margin | 13.2% (better) | 1.9% |
| Return on equity | 65.1% | 73.4% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | – | 25.1% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 3.13 | 0.82 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 1.04 |
| Interest coverage | – | 19.8× |
| Current ratio | 0.73 | 1.33 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.99 | 3.77 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.96% | 2.8% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 29.2% | 26.3% |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 | 16 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 12.1% | 25.1% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 3.2% (better) | 2.5% |
| Shareholder yield | 4.2% | 5.3% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 83.1% | 94.7% |
| Held by insiders | 0.32% | 0.32% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$9.7M (better) | −$11.3M |
| Superinvestors holding | 4 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.9% | 8.3% |
Go deeper
- SHW stock overview
- SHW income statement
- SHW valuation and score
- TSCO stock overview
- TSCO income statement
- TSCO valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.