Latham vs Advanced Drainage Systems
SWIM and WMS side by side, both in miscellaneous plastics products. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How SWIM and WMS compare
Advanced Drainage Systems is the larger company, worth 12 times as much as Latham ($10.2B against $860M).
On earnings, Advanced Drainage Systems is cheaper: it trades at 23.4× trailing earnings, against 146× for Latham.
Latham grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (10.5% versus 10.4% for Advanced Drainage Systems).
Advanced Drainage Systems keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 14.0% compared with 0.92% at Latham.
Advanced Drainage Systems pays a dividend yielding 0.56%; Latham does not pay one.
Advanced Drainage Systems scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 8 for Latham), 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 | SWIM | WMS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $860M | $10.2B |
| Share price | $7.31 | $135.43 |
| Change, 1 year | −0.54% | −3.1% |
| Change, 5 years | −54.5% | 9.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.91 | 1.43 |
| Employees | 1,804 | 4,950 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 | 17 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 | 3 |
| Performance score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 146× | 23.4× (better) |
| P/S | 1.5× (better) | 3.2× |
| P/B | 2.1× (better) | 5.7× |
| EV/EBITDA | 13.3× | 13.0× (better) |
| P/FCF | 17.5× (better) | 18.6× |
| FCF yield | 5.7% (better) | 5.4% |
| Fair value | $4.77 | $132.53 |
| Margin of safety | −53.3% | −2.2% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 10.5% (better) | 10.4% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.2% | 9.0% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 4.2% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 4.5% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −10.9% | 16.0% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 33.4% | 38.6% (better) |
| Operating margin | 5.1% | 20.7% (better) |
| Net margin | 0.92% | 14.0% (better) |
| FCF margin | 8.5% | 17.1% (better) |
| Return on equity | 1.3% | 26.1% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 2.4% | 18.4% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.68 (better) | 0.90 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.87 | 1.62 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 1.3× | – |
| Current ratio | 2.16 (better) | 2.12 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.02 | 4.34 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.56% |
| Payout ratio | – | 12.7% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 5 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 14.9% |
| Buyback yield | – | 3.2% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 3.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 92.6% | 92.4% |
| Held by insiders | 17.7% | 1.2% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $316K (better) | −$14.8M |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.0% | 4.0% |
Go deeper
- SWIM stock overview
- SWIM income statement
- SWIM valuation and score
- WMS stock overview
- WMS income statement
- WMS valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.