Ecolab vs Estee Lauder Companies
ECL and EL 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 ECL and EL compare
Ecolab is the larger company, worth 2.1 times as much as Estee Lauder Companies ($86.3B against $40.6B).
On earnings, Ecolab is cheaper: it trades at 41.9× trailing earnings, against 112× for Estee Lauder Companies.
Ecolab grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (9.3% versus 5.8% for Estee Lauder Companies).
Both pay dividends: Ecolab yields 0.95% and Estee Lauder Companies 1.2%.
Ecolab scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 8 for Estee Lauder Companies), 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 | ECL | EL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $86.3B | $40.6B |
| Share price | $307.86 | $112.33 |
| Change, 1 year | 19.1% | 25.3% |
| Change, 5 years | 31.1% | −68.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.95 | 1.17 |
| Employees | 48K | 57K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 (better) | 8 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 41.9× (better) | 112× |
| P/S | 5.0× | 2.7× (better) |
| P/B | 8.3× (better) | 10.1× |
| EV/EBITDA | 34.1× | 24.5× (better) |
| P/FCF | 48.1× | 26.8× (better) |
| PEG | 1.74 | – |
| FCF yield | 2.1% | 3.7% (better) |
| Fair value | $241.95 | $66.49 |
| Margin of safety | −27.2% (better) | −68.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 9.3% (better) | 5.8% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.4% (better) | −1.5% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 4.9% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 5.6% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | −42.3% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 43.9% | 76.0% (better) |
| Operating margin | 16.7% (better) | 6.7% |
| Net margin | 12.0% | – |
| FCF margin | 10.3% (better) | 9.9% |
| Return on equity | 20.7% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 12.1% (better) | 6.1% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.27 (better) | 1.67 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.30 | 1.97 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 7.4× (better) | 3.1× |
| Current ratio | 1.11 | 1.25 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 4.02 (better) | 3.36 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | – |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.95% | 1.2% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 39.3% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 7.2% (better) | −7.5% |
| Buyback yield | 1.3% (better) | 0.15% |
| Shareholder yield | 2.2% (better) | 1.4% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 80.5% | 63.5% |
| Held by insiders | 10.6% | 54.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$17.2M (better) | −$24.7M |
| Superinvestors holding | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.7% | 4.1% |
Go deeper
- ECL stock overview
- ECL income statement
- ECL valuation and score
- EL stock overview
- EL income statement
- EL valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.