Colgate Palmolive vs Procter & Gamble
CL and PG 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 PG compare
Procter & Gamble is the larger company, worth 5.0 times as much as Colgate Palmolive ($389B against $77.9B).
On earnings, Procter & Gamble is cheaper: it trades at 25.4× trailing earnings, against 38.4× for Colgate Palmolive.
Colgate Palmolive grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.9% versus 3.5% for Procter & Gamble).
Procter & Gamble keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 18.2% compared with 9.6% at Colgate Palmolive.
Both pay dividends: Colgate Palmolive yields 1.6% and Procter & Gamble 1.9%.
Procter & Gamble scores higher on the StockData Score (12 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 | PG |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $77.9B | $389B |
| Share price | $98.00 | $167.67 |
| Change, 1 year | 24.9% | 15.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 26.9% | 14.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.28 | 0.39 |
| Employees | 34K | 104K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 12 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 3 | 3 |
| Dividend score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 38.4× | 25.4× (better) |
| P/S | 3.7× (better) | 4.4× |
| P/B | 270× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 22.1× | 17.9× (better) |
| P/FCF | 20.6× (better) | 25.3× |
| PEG | 5.28 (better) | 6.48 |
| FCF yield | 4.9% (better) | 3.9% |
| Fair value | $76.33 | $165.04 |
| Margin of safety | −28.4% | −1.6% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.9% (better) | 3.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.4% (better) | 2.7% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −29.4% | −4.4% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −28.6% | −3.1% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −3.5% | 3.8% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 60.6% (better) | 49.8% |
| Operating margin | 14.8% | 22.6% (better) |
| Net margin | 9.6% | 18.2% (better) |
| FCF margin | 17.8% (better) | 17.4% |
| Return on equity | 359% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 36.1% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 24.94 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.49 | 1.02 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 12.6× | 22.0× (better) |
| Current ratio | 0.96 (better) | 0.72 |
| Altman Z-score | 7.07 (better) | 5.49 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.6% | 1.9% (better) |
| Payout ratio | – | 64.2% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 8 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 3.5% | 5.6% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 1.7% (better) | 1.3% |
| Shareholder yield | 3.3% (better) | 3.2% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 85.6% | 70.5% |
| Held by insiders | 0.15% | 0.06% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$63.7M (better) | −$93.5M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.3% | 0.97% |
Go deeper
- CL stock overview
- CL income statement
- CL valuation and score
- PG stock overview
- PG income statement
- PG valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.