Karat Packaging vs Newell Brands
KRT and NWL side by side, both in miscellaneous plastics products. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How KRT and NWL compare
Newell Brands is the larger company, worth 3.7 times as much as Karat Packaging ($2.5B against $667M).
Karat Packaging grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (11.0% versus 0.79% for Newell Brands).
Karat Packaging keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 9.4% compared with −4.4% at Newell Brands.
Both pay dividends: Karat Packaging yields 5.4% and Newell Brands 4.8%.
Karat Packaging scores higher on the StockData Score (26 against 7 for Newell Brands), 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 | KRT | NWL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $667M | $2.5B |
| Share price | $33.45 | $5.78 |
| Change, 1 year | 52.4% | 72.0% |
| Change, 5 years | 59.3% | −74.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.79 | 1.20 |
| Employees | 696 | 22K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 26 (better) | 7 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 14.2× | – |
| P/S | 1.3× | 0.3× (better) |
| P/B | 4.1× | 1.0× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 9.3× (better) | 18.0× |
| P/FCF | 10.3× (better) | 46.5× |
| PEG | 1.50 | – |
| FCF yield | 9.7% (better) | 2.2% |
| Fair value | $45.00 | $5.67 |
| Margin of safety | 25.7% (better) | −1.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 11.0% (better) | 0.79% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 9.6% (better) | −5.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 56.1% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 57.3% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 6.7% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 40.3% (better) | 35.6% |
| Operating margin | 11.8% (better) | 0.98% |
| Net margin | 9.4% (better) | −4.4% |
| FCF margin | 12.8% (better) | 0.72% |
| Return on equity | 29.8% (better) | −12.8% |
| Return on invested capital | 33.0% (better) | 0.81% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.14 (better) | 2.05 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.29 | 11.58 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 34.1× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.83 (better) | 1.27 |
| Altman Z-score | 5.93 (better) | 0.53 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 5.4% (better) | 4.8% |
| Payout ratio | 76.9% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 114% (better) | −21.2% |
| Shareholder yield | 5.4% (better) | 4.8% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 35.7% | 105% |
| Held by insiders | 57.4% | 1.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$593K (better) | −$1.9M |
| Short interest, % of float | 7.8% | 9.4% |
Go deeper
- KRT stock overview
- KRT income statement
- KRT valuation and score
- NWL stock overview
- NWL income statement
- NWL valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.