Ashland vs Sensient Technologies
ASH and SXT side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How ASH and SXT compare
Sensient Technologies is the larger company, worth 1.4 times as much as Ashland ($5.1B against $3.5B).
Sensient Technologies grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (9.5% versus −1.4% for Ashland).
Both pay dividends: Ashland yields 2.2% and Sensient Technologies 1.0%.
Sensient Technologies scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 6 for Ashland), 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 | ASH | SXT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.5B | $5.1B |
| Share price | $76.72 | $118.81 |
| Change, 1 year | 53.8% | 27.9% |
| Change, 5 years | −29.8% | 15.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.92 | 0.83 |
| Employees | 2,900 | 4,070 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 6 | 14 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 29.9× |
| P/S | 1.9× (better) | 2.9× |
| P/B | 1.9× (better) | 3.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | 13.6× (better) | 18.3× |
| P/FCF | 14.1× | – |
| FCF yield | 7.1% (better) | −0.35% |
| Fair value | $61.27 | $95.56 |
| Margin of safety | −25.2% | −24.3% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −1.4% | 9.5% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −2.0% | 3.9% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 21.7% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 21.4% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 4.1% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 31.5% | 35.1% (better) |
| Operating margin | 7.4% | 14.5% (better) |
| Net margin | – | 9.7% |
| FCF margin | 13.6% (better) | −1.0% |
| Return on equity | – | 13.7% |
| Return on invested capital | 2.8% | 10.0% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.73 | 0.61 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.85 | 2.36 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 8.0× |
| Current ratio | 3.05 | 3.97 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.51 | 5.16 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | – | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.2% (better) | 1.0% |
| Payout ratio | – | 41.2% |
| Years of dividend growth | 7 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 8.3% (better) | 1.0% |
| Shareholder yield | 2.2% (better) | 1.0% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 114% | 99.0% |
| Held by insiders | 10.2% | 26.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | – | −$234M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 12.3% | 3.1% |
Go deeper
- ASH stock overview
- ASH income statement
- ASH valuation and score
- SXT stock overview
- SXT income statement
- SXT valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.