Colgate Palmolive vs Coty
CL and COTY 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 CL and COTY compare
Colgate Palmolive is the larger company, worth 22 times as much as Coty ($77.9B against $3.6B).
Colgate Palmolive grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.9% versus −0.24% for Coty).
Colgate Palmolive keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 9.6% compared with −9.7% at Coty.
Colgate Palmolive pays a dividend yielding 1.6%; Coty does not pay one.
Colgate Palmolive scores higher on the StockData Score (9 against 3 for Coty), 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 | CL | COTY |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $77.9B | $3.6B |
| Share price | $98.00 | $4.06 |
| Change, 1 year | 24.9% | 14.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 26.9% | −60.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.28 | 1.00 |
| Employees | 34K | 11K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 38.4× | – |
| P/S | 3.7× | 0.6× (better) |
| P/B | 270× | 1.2× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 22.1× | 16.6× (better) |
| P/FCF | 20.6× | 8.5× (better) |
| PEG | 5.28 | – |
| FCF yield | 4.9% | 11.8% (better) |
| Fair value | $76.33 | $3.70 |
| Margin of safety | −28.4% | −9.7% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.9% (better) | −0.24% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.4% | 4.6% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −29.4% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −28.6% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −3.5% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 60.6% | 62.6% (better) |
| Operating margin | 14.8% (better) | −1.7% |
| Net margin | 9.6% (better) | −9.7% |
| FCF margin | 17.8% (better) | 7.3% |
| Return on equity | 359% (better) | −16.7% |
| Return on invested capital | 36.1% (better) | −1.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 24.94 | 0.89 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.49 (better) | 6.71 |
| Interest coverage | 12.6× (better) | −0.6× |
| Current ratio | 0.96 (better) | 0.75 |
| Altman Z-score | 7.07 (better) | −0.02 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.6% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 3.5% | – |
| Buyback yield | 1.7% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 3.3% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 85.6% | 44.1% |
| Held by insiders | 0.15% | 61.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$63.7M | $213K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.3% | 11.7% |
Go deeper
- CL stock overview
- CL income statement
- CL valuation and score
- COTY stock overview
- COTY income statement
- COTY valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.