California Water Service vs Essential Utilities
CWT and WTRG 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 WTRG compare
Essential Utilities is the larger company, worth 4.1 times as much as California Water Service ($12.8B against $3.1B).
On earnings, California Water Service is cheaper: it trades at 22.1× trailing earnings, against 22.7× for Essential Utilities.
Essential Utilities grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (9.2% versus 4.8% for California Water Service).
Essential Utilities keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 21.8% compared with 13.5% at California Water Service.
Both pay dividends: California Water Service yields 2.0% and Essential Utilities 2.3%.
California Water Service scores higher on the StockData Score (10 against 7 for Essential Utilities), 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 | WTRG |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.1B | $12.8B |
| Share price | $49.53 | $45.23 |
| Change, 1 year | 8.9% | 15.7% |
| Change, 5 years | −26.2% | −6.9% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.33 | 0.32 |
| Employees | 1,336 | 3,303 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 (better) | 7 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 | 2 |
| Health score | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 22.1× (better) | 22.7× |
| P/S | 3.1× (better) | 4.9× |
| P/B | – | 1.8× |
| EV/EBITDA | 13.9× (better) | 15.6× |
| PEG | 3.30 | 3.02 (better) |
| Fair value | $55.53 | $43.95 |
| Margin of safety | 10.8% (better) | −2.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 4.8% | 9.2% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.7% | 11.1% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 0.74% (better) | −15.2% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −2.2% (better) | −17.4% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 1.8% | 14.5% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 19.4% | 35.5% (better) |
| Net margin | 13.5% | 21.8% (better) |
| Return on equity | – | 8.1% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 5.8% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 1.20 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.71 (better) | 6.24 |
| Interest coverage | 2.5× | 2.6× (better) |
| Current ratio | 0.71 (better) | 0.40 |
| Altman Z-score | 0.87 | 0.99 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.0% | 2.3% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 57.4% | 69.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | 15 | 16 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 7.8% (better) | 6.6% |
| Buyback yield | −4.7% | −0.10% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | −2.7% | 2.2% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 88.0% | 79.0% |
| Held by insiders | 0.75% | 4.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$1.0M | −$113K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.6% | 2.6% |
Go deeper
- CWT stock overview
- CWT income statement
- CWT valuation and score
- WTRG stock overview
- WTRG income statement
- WTRG valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.