Sonoco Products vs Smurfit Westrock
SON and SW 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 SON and SW compare
Smurfit Westrock is the larger company, worth 4.6 times as much as Sonoco Products ($22.6B against $4.9B).
On earnings, Sonoco Products is cheaper: it trades at 7.9× trailing earnings, against 45.8× for Smurfit Westrock.
Sonoco Products grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (17.7% versus 1.7% for Smurfit Westrock).
Sonoco Products keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 8.4% compared with 1.6% at Smurfit Westrock.
Both pay dividends: Sonoco Products yields 4.3% and Smurfit Westrock 3.1%.
Sonoco Products scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 7 for Smurfit Westrock), 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 | SON | SW |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $4.9B | $22.6B |
| Share price | $49.96 | $43.09 |
| Change, 1 year | 25.8% | 13.9% |
| Change, 5 years | −17.7% | −20.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.73 | 1.07 |
| Employees | 23K | 97K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 19 (better) | 7 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Dividend score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 7.9× (better) | 45.8× |
| P/S | 0.7× (better) | 0.7× |
| P/B | 1.4× | 1.3× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 5.9× (better) | 8.6× |
| P/FCF | 13.9× (better) | 22.3× |
| PEG | 0.28 | – |
| FCF yield | 7.2% (better) | 4.5% |
| Fair value | $89.85 | $30.58 |
| Margin of safety | 44.4% (better) | −40.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 17.7% (better) | 1.7% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.0% | – |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 12.9% | 41.2% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 12.7% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 37.5% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 20.8% (better) | 17.9% |
| Operating margin | 13.9% (better) | 4.7% |
| Net margin | 8.4% (better) | 1.6% |
| FCF margin | 4.8% (better) | 3.2% |
| Return on equity | 18.4% (better) | 2.7% |
| Return on invested capital | 10.1% (better) | 3.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.24 | 0.79 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.75 (better) | 3.20 |
| Interest coverage | 5.1× (better) | 1.8× |
| Current ratio | 0.99 | 1.45 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.83 (better) | 1.46 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 4.3% (better) | 3.1% |
| Payout ratio | 33.5% | 186% |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 4.2% | – |
| Buyback yield | 0.15% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 4.4% (better) | 3.1% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 98.6% | 96.0% |
| Held by insiders | 1.3% | 0.54% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $884K (better) | −$3.4M |
| Short interest, % of float | 11.4% | 5.1% |
Go deeper
- SON stock overview
- SON income statement
- SON valuation and score
- SW stock overview
- SW income statement
- SW valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.