American Water Works vs California Water Service
AWK and CWT side by side, both in water supply. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How AWK and CWT compare
American Water Works is the larger company, worth 9.5 times as much as California Water Service ($29.8B against $3.1B).
On earnings, California Water Service is cheaper: it trades at 22.2× trailing earnings, against 25.9× for American Water Works.
American Water Works grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.1% versus 4.8% for California Water Service).
American Water Works keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 21.3% compared with 13.5% at California Water Service.
Both pay dividends: American Water Works yields 2.3% and California Water Service 2.0%.
California Water Service scores higher on the StockData Score (10 against 9 for American Water Works), 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 | AWK | CWT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $29.8B | $3.1B |
| Share price | $149.66 | $49.67 |
| Change, 1 year | 16.1% | 8.6% |
| Change, 5 years | −13.7% | −26.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.39 | 0.33 |
| Employees | 7,000 | 1,336 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 10 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 25.9× | 22.2× (better) |
| P/S | 5.6× | 3.1× (better) |
| P/B | 2.5× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 15.7× | 13.9× (better) |
| PEG | 3.22 (better) | 3.31 |
| FCF yield | −3.9% | – |
| Fair value | $135.85 | $55.84 |
| Margin of safety | −10.2% | 11.0% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.1% (better) | 4.8% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.5% | 6.7% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 2.2% (better) | 0.74% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 1.4% (better) | −2.2% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 7.8% (better) | 1.8% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 37.2% (better) | 19.4% |
| Net margin | 21.3% (better) | 13.5% |
| FCF margin | −21.7% | – |
| Return on equity | 9.9% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 5.7% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.37 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 5.53 | 4.71 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 3.0× (better) | 2.5× |
| Current ratio | 0.39 | 0.71 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.07 (better) | 0.87 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.3% (better) | 2.0% |
| Payout ratio | 59.4% | 57.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | 13 | 15 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 8.5% (better) | 7.8% |
| Buyback yield | – | −4.7% |
| Shareholder yield | 2.3% (better) | −2.7% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 103% | 88.0% |
| Held by insiders | 0.15% | 0.75% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | – | −$1.0M |
| Short interest, % of float | 8.2% | 3.6% |
Go deeper
- AWK stock overview
- AWK income statement
- AWK valuation and score
- CWT stock overview
- CWT income statement
- CWT valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.