Colgate Palmolive vs Haleon
CL and HLN 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 HLN compare
Colgate Palmolive grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.9% versus −1.8% for Haleon).
Haleon keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 15.1% compared with 9.6% at Colgate Palmolive.
Colgate Palmolive pays a dividend yielding 1.6%; Haleon does not pay one.
Colgate Palmolive scores higher on the StockData Score (10 against 9 for Haleon), 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 | HLN |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $79.2B | – |
| Share price | $99.67 | $9.17 |
| Change, 1 year | 26.9% | −7.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 29.1% | – |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.29 | 0.17 |
| Employees | 34K | – |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 (better) | 9 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 4 | 4 |
| Health score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 39.1× | – |
| P/S | 3.7× | – |
| P/B | 275× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 22.4× | – |
| P/FCF | 20.9× | – |
| PEG | 5.37 | – |
| FCF yield | 4.8% | – |
| Fair value | $78.87 | – |
| Margin of safety | −26.4% | – |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.9% (better) | −1.8% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.4% (better) | 2.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −29.4% | 15.6% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −28.6% | 17.8% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −3.5% | 8.3% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 60.6% | 64.2% (better) |
| Operating margin | 14.8% | 21.9% (better) |
| Net margin | 9.6% | 15.1% (better) |
| FCF margin | 17.8% | 21.0% (better) |
| Return on equity | 359% (better) | 10.2% |
| Return on invested capital | 36.1% (better) | 7.9% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 24.94 | 0.50 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.49 (better) | 2.68 |
| Interest coverage | 12.6× (better) | 7.1× |
| Current ratio | 0.96 (better) | 0.69 |
| Altman Z-score | 7.12 | – |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| 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% | – |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 85.6% | 6.7% |
| Held by insiders | 0.15% | 0.00% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$64.1M | – |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.3% | – |
Go deeper
- CL stock overview
- CL income statement
- CL valuation and score
- HLN stock overview
- HLN income statement
- HLN valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.