Suburban Propane Partners LP vs Savers Value Village
SPH and SVV side by side, both in miscellaneous retail. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How SPH and SVV compare
Savers Value Village is the larger company, worth 1.2 times as much as Suburban Propane Partners LP ($1.4B against $1.2B).
Savers Value Village grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (10.0% versus −2.5% for Suburban Propane Partners LP).
Suburban Propane Partners LP keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 9.4% compared with 1.4% at Savers Value Village.
Suburban Propane Partners LP pays a dividend yielding 7.2%; Savers Value Village does not pay one.
Suburban Propane Partners LP scores higher on the StockData Score (11 against 5 for Savers Value Village), 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 | SPH | SVV |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.2B | $1.4B |
| Share price | $17.96 | $9.31 |
| Change, 1 year | −1.8% | −29.9% |
| Change, 5 years | 18.8% | – |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.35 | 0.86 |
| Employees | 3,190 | 24K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 11 (better) | 5 |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 58.2× |
| P/S | 0.9× | 0.8× (better) |
| P/B | – | 3.2× |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.6× (better) | 9.2× |
| P/FCF | 11.8× (better) | 17.5× |
| FCF yield | 8.5% (better) | 5.7% |
| Fair value | $26.26 | $8.47 |
| Margin of safety | 31.6% (better) | −9.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −2.5% | 10.0% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 5.3% | – |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 34.5% (better) | −27.0% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | −23.8% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 10.8% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 63.1% (better) | 55.7% |
| Operating margin | 15.1% (better) | 7.7% |
| Net margin | 9.4% (better) | 1.4% |
| FCF margin | 7.3% (better) | 4.7% |
| Return on equity | – | 5.7% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 7.6% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 1.61 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.36 | 2.79 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 2.8× | – |
| Current ratio | 0.78 | 0.84 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.30 | 1.37 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 7.2% | – |
| Buyback yield | – | 2.1% |
| Shareholder yield | 7.2% (better) | 2.1% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 43.3% | 107% |
| Held by insiders | 3.3% | 76.8% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$264K (better) | −$480M |
| Short interest, % of float | 0.75% | 29.3% |
Go deeper
- SPH stock overview
- SPH income statement
- SPH valuation and score
- SVV stock overview
- SVV income statement
- SVV valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.