Mondelez International vs Philip Morris International
MDLZ and PM side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How MDLZ and PM compare
Philip Morris International is the larger company, worth 3.6 times as much as Mondelez International ($310B against $85.5B).
On earnings, Mondelez International is cheaper: it trades at 21.3× trailing earnings, against 29.0× for Philip Morris International.
Philip Morris International grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (7.9% versus 6.0% for Mondelez International).
Philip Morris International keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 24.8% compared with 10.2% at Mondelez International.
Both pay dividends: Mondelez International yields 3.0% and Philip Morris International 3.0%.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | MDLZ | PM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $85.5B | $310B |
| Share price | $67.54 | $198.96 |
| Change, 1 year | 18.5% | 27.9% |
| Change, 5 years | 11.6% | 120% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.28 | 0.33 |
| Employees | 91K | 85K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 | 13 |
| Valuation score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 3 | 3 |
| Performance score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 | 4 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 21.3× (better) | 29.0× |
| P/S | 2.1× (better) | 7.2× |
| P/B | 3.2× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 15.4× (better) | 18.9× |
| P/FCF | 23.4× | 22.8× (better) |
| PEG | – | 3.77 |
| FCF yield | 4.3% | 4.4% (better) |
| Fair value | $63.03 | $141.94 |
| Margin of safety | −7.2% (better) | −40.2% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.0% | 7.9% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.7% (better) | 7.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 15.5% | 24.1% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 18.7% | 23.9% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −5.2% | 7.1% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 34.3% | 67.7% (better) |
| Operating margin | 13.7% | 38.6% (better) |
| Net margin | 10.2% | 24.8% (better) |
| FCF margin | 9.2% | 31.5% (better) |
| Return on equity | 15.5% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 9.0% | 38.7% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.82 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.93 | 2.18 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 9.2× | – |
| Current ratio | 0.62 | 1.02 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.54 | 4.81 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 3.0% | 3.0% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 63.1% | 85.9% |
| Years of dividend growth | 3 | 16 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 3.5% |
| Buyback yield | 1.6% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 4.6% (better) | 3.0% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 87.7% | 84.0% |
| Held by insiders | 0.22% | 0.17% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$34.6M | −$28.8M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | 6 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.3% | 0.96% |
Go deeper
- MDLZ stock overview
- MDLZ income statement
- MDLZ valuation and score
- PM stock overview
- PM income statement
- PM valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.