Colgate Palmolive vs Kimberly Clark
CL and KMB side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CL and KMB compare
Colgate Palmolive is the larger company, worth 2.2 times as much as Kimberly Clark ($79.2B against $36.4B).
On earnings, Kimberly Clark is cheaper: it trades at 11.0× trailing earnings, against 39.1× for Colgate Palmolive.
Colgate Palmolive grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.9% versus 0.58% for Kimberly Clark).
Kimberly Clark keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 19.9% compared with 9.6% at Colgate Palmolive.
Both pay dividends: Colgate Palmolive yields 1.6% and Kimberly Clark 4.7%.
Kimberly Clark scores higher on the StockData Score (22 against 10 for Colgate Palmolive), 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 | KMB |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $79.2B | $36.4B |
| Share price | $99.67 | $109.43 |
| Change, 1 year | 26.9% | 5.1% |
| Change, 5 years | 29.1% | −18.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.29 | 0.33 |
| Employees | 34K | 36K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 22 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 1 | 6 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 39.1× | 11.0× (better) |
| P/S | 3.7× | 2.2× (better) |
| P/B | 275× | 12.4× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 22.4× | 13.1× (better) |
| P/FCF | 20.9× | 18.7× (better) |
| PEG | 5.37 (better) | 5.52 |
| FCF yield | 4.8% | 5.3% (better) |
| Fair value | $78.87 | $148.57 |
| Margin of safety | −26.4% | 26.3% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.9% (better) | 0.58% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.4% (better) | −3.0% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −29.4% | 67.7% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −28.6% | 67.7% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −3.5% | −2.4% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 60.6% (better) | 36.5% |
| Operating margin | 14.8% (better) | 14.5% |
| Net margin | 9.6% | 19.9% (better) |
| FCF margin | 17.8% (better) | 11.7% |
| Return on equity | 359% (better) | 155% |
| Return on invested capital | 36.1% (better) | 22.7% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 24.94 | 2.21 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.49 | 1.47 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 12.6× (better) | 11.0× |
| Current ratio | 0.96 (better) | 0.89 |
| Altman Z-score | 7.12 (better) | 3.71 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.6% | 4.7% (better) |
| Payout ratio | – | 51.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 3.5% (better) | 3.3% |
| Buyback yield | 1.7% (better) | 0.00% |
| Shareholder yield | 3.3% | 4.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 85.6% | 96.9% |
| Held by insiders | 0.15% | 0.24% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$64.1M | $33.8K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.3% | 15.9% |
Go deeper
- CL stock overview
- CL income statement
- CL valuation and score
- KMB stock overview
- KMB income statement
- KMB valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.