California Water Service vs H2O America
CWT and HTO side by side, both in water supply. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CWT and HTO compare
California Water Service and H2O America are about the same size, with market caps of $3.1B and $2.9B.
On earnings, California Water Service is cheaper: it trades at 22.1× trailing earnings, against 23.7× for H2O America.
California Water Service grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (4.8% versus 4.2% for H2O America).
California Water Service keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 13.5% compared with 12.5% at H2O America.
Both pay dividends: California Water Service yields 2.0% and H2O America 2.9%.
California Water Service scores higher on the StockData Score (10 against 9 for H2O America), 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 | CWT | HTO |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.1B | $2.9B |
| Share price | $49.53 | $60.56 |
| Change, 1 year | 8.9% | 28.8% |
| Change, 5 years | −26.2% | −14.1% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.33 | 0.27 |
| Employees | 1,336 | 837 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 (better) | 9 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 0 | 0 |
| Performance score | 2 | 2 |
| Health score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 22.1× (better) | 23.7× |
| P/S | 3.1× (better) | 3.5× |
| P/B | – | 1.3× |
| EV/EBITDA | 13.9× | 13.9× (better) |
| PEG | 3.30 (better) | 3.76 |
| Fair value | $55.53 | $61.23 |
| Margin of safety | 10.8% (better) | 1.1% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 4.8% (better) | 4.2% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.7% | 7.2% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 0.74% (better) | −4.0% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −2.2% (better) | −19.0% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 1.8% | 6.4% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 19.4% | 20.7% (better) |
| Net margin | 13.5% (better) | 12.5% |
| Return on equity | – | 5.6% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 4.6% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.86 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.71 | 4.30 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 2.5× (better) | 2.4× |
| Current ratio | 0.71 | 1.90 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 0.87 | 0.90 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.0% | 2.9% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 57.4% | 64.6% |
| Years of dividend growth | 15 | 16 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 7.8% (better) | 5.6% |
| Buyback yield | −4.7% (better) | −21.6% |
| Shareholder yield | −2.7% (better) | −18.7% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 88.0% | 91.6% |
| Held by insiders | 0.75% | 0.59% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$1.0M | $8.0M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.6% | – |
Go deeper
- CWT stock overview
- CWT income statement
- CWT valuation and score
- HTO stock overview
- HTO income statement
- HTO valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.