International Flavors & Fragrances vs Sensient Technologies
IFF and SXT side by side, both in chemicals and allied products. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How IFF and SXT compare
International Flavors & Fragrances is the larger company, worth 4.2 times as much as Sensient Technologies ($21.1B against $5.1B).
Sensient Technologies grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (9.5% versus −4.6% for International Flavors & Fragrances).
Both pay dividends: International Flavors & Fragrances yields 1.9% and Sensient Technologies 1.0%.
Sensient Technologies scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 9 for International Flavors & Fragrances), 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 | IFF | SXT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $21.1B | $5.1B |
| Share price | $82.65 | $118.81 |
| Change, 1 year | 31.7% | 27.9% |
| Change, 5 years | −44.9% | 15.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.00 | 0.83 |
| Employees | 22K | 4,070 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 14 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 3 | 3 |
| Dividend score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 29.9× |
| P/S | 2.1× (better) | 2.9× |
| P/B | 1.5× (better) | 3.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | 15.4× (better) | 18.3× |
| P/FCF | 39.1× | – |
| FCF yield | 2.6% (better) | −0.35% |
| Fair value | $86.65 | $95.56 |
| Margin of safety | 4.6% (better) | −24.3% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −4.6% | 9.5% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 16.5% (better) | 3.9% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 21.7% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 21.4% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 4.1% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 37.5% (better) | 35.1% |
| Operating margin | 7.6% | 14.5% (better) |
| Net margin | – | 9.7% |
| FCF margin | 5.4% (better) | −1.0% |
| Return on equity | – | 13.7% |
| Return on invested capital | 3.0% | 10.0% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.41 (better) | 0.61 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.01 | 2.36 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 4.0× | 8.0× (better) |
| Current ratio | 2.06 | 3.97 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.66 | 5.16 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | – | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.9% (better) | 1.0% |
| Payout ratio | – | 41.2% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | −12.0% | 1.0% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 1.9% (better) | 1.0% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 111% | 99.0% |
| Held by insiders | 1.2% | 26.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $31.2M (better) | −$234M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.1% | 3.1% |
Go deeper
- IFF stock overview
- IFF income statement
- IFF valuation and score
- SXT stock overview
- SXT income statement
- SXT valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.