Carlisle Companies vs Goodyear Tire & Rubber
CSL and GT side by side, both in rubber and miscellaneous plastics products. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CSL and GT compare
Carlisle Companies is the larger company, worth 13 times as much as Goodyear Tire & Rubber ($15.3B against $1.2B).
Carlisle Companies grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (4.0% versus −3.9% for Goodyear Tire & Rubber).
Carlisle Companies keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 13.8% compared with −3.3% at Goodyear Tire & Rubber.
Carlisle Companies pays a dividend yielding 1.1%; Goodyear Tire & Rubber does not pay one.
Carlisle Companies scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 4 for Goodyear Tire & Rubber), 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 | CSL | GT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $15.3B | $1.2B |
| Share price | $396.13 | $4.12 |
| Change, 1 year | 23.5% | −46.7% |
| Change, 5 years | 66.2% | −81.1% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.91 | 1.31 |
| Employees | 5,900 | 63K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 (better) | 4 |
| Valuation score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 0 | 0 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 22.4× | – |
| P/S | 2.9× | 0.1× (better) |
| P/B | 10.6× | 0.5× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.6× | 8.0× (better) |
| P/FCF | 20.4× | 13.2× (better) |
| FCF yield | 4.9% | 7.6% (better) |
| Fair value | $358.13 | $13.02 |
| Margin of safety | −10.6% | 68.3% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 4.0% (better) | −3.9% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.8% | 8.2% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −7.4% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 0.28% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 24.2% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 34.7% (better) | 17.8% |
| Operating margin | 19.5% | – |
| Net margin | 13.8% (better) | −3.3% |
| FCF margin | 14.4% (better) | 0.51% |
| Return on equity | 41.9% (better) | −20.8% |
| Return on invested capital | 20.8% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 2.01 (better) | 2.80 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.93 (better) | 6.62 |
| Interest coverage | 9.1× | – |
| Current ratio | 2.40 (better) | 1.12 |
| Altman Z-score | 5.47 (better) | 1.25 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.1% (better) | 0.00% |
| Payout ratio | 25.8% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 15.4% | – |
| Buyback yield | 7.5% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 8.7% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 107% | 93.9% |
| Held by insiders | 1.4% | 0.74% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$28.2M | $0 (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.4% | 19.7% |
Go deeper
- CSL stock overview
- CSL income statement
- CSL valuation and score
- GT stock overview
- GT income statement
- GT valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.