Church & Dwight vs Ecolab
CHD and ECL side by side, both in soap, detergents, and cleaning preparations; perfumes, cosmetics, and other toilet preparations. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CHD and ECL compare
Ecolab is the larger company, worth 3.3 times as much as Church & Dwight ($86.3B against $26.4B).
On earnings, Church & Dwight is cheaper: it trades at 34.5× trailing earnings, against 41.9× for Ecolab.
Ecolab grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (9.3% versus 1.7% for Church & Dwight).
Church & Dwight keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 12.4% compared with 12.0% at Ecolab.
Both pay dividends: Church & Dwight yields 1.1% and Ecolab 0.95%.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | CHD | ECL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $26.4B | $86.3B |
| Share price | $112.02 | $307.86 |
| Change, 1 year | 32.3% | 19.1% |
| Change, 5 years | 21.5% | 31.1% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.30 | 0.95 |
| Employees | 5,550 | 48K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 | 16 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 3 | 3 |
| Performance score | 5 | 5 |
| Health score | 4 | 4 |
| Dividend score | 4 | 4 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 34.5× (better) | 41.9× |
| P/S | 4.2× (better) | 5.0× |
| P/B | 5.9× (better) | 8.3× |
| EV/EBITDA | 25.1× (better) | 34.1× |
| P/FCF | 25.0× (better) | 48.1× |
| PEG | 1.60 (better) | 1.74 |
| FCF yield | 4.0% (better) | 2.1% |
| Fair value | $92.11 | $241.95 |
| Margin of safety | −21.6% (better) | −27.2% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 1.7% | 9.3% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.8% | 6.4% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −0.98% | 4.9% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 2.2% | 5.6% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −0.65% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 46.1% (better) | 43.9% |
| Operating margin | 18.0% (better) | 16.7% |
| Net margin | 12.4% (better) | 12.0% |
| FCF margin | 16.9% (better) | 10.3% |
| Return on equity | 17.8% | 20.7% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 14.3% (better) | 12.1% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.49 (better) | 1.27 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.56 (better) | 4.30 |
| Interest coverage | 11.6× (better) | 7.4× |
| Current ratio | 0.96 | 1.11 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 5.40 (better) | 4.02 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.1% (better) | 0.95% |
| Payout ratio | 37.5% | 39.3% |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 | 16 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 4.2% | 7.2% (better) |
| Buyback yield | – | 1.3% |
| Shareholder yield | 1.1% | 2.2% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 92.7% | 80.5% |
| Held by insiders | 0.14% | 10.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$23.3M | −$17.2M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.5% | 1.7% |
Go deeper
- CHD stock overview
- CHD income statement
- CHD valuation and score
- ECL stock overview
- ECL income statement
- ECL valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.