3M vs Solventum
MMM and SOLV side by side, both in surgical, medical, and dental instruments and supplies. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How MMM and SOLV compare
3M is the larger company, worth 6.5 times as much as Solventum ($97.6B against $15.1B).
On earnings, 3M is cheaper: it trades at 28.1× trailing earnings, against 99.6× for Solventum.
3M grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (1.7% versus −2.8% for Solventum).
3M keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 14.0% compared with 1.9% at Solventum.
3M pays a dividend yielding 1.6%; Solventum does not pay one.
3M scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 6 for Solventum), 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 | MMM | SOLV |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $97.6B | $15.1B |
| Share price | $188.88 | $88.62 |
| Change, 1 year | 12.6% | 23.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 5.4% | – |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.01 | 0.52 |
| Employees | 61K | 10K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 (better) | 6 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 28.1× (better) | 99.6× |
| P/S | 3.9× | 1.8× (better) |
| P/B | 23.6× | 3.1× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 17.5× (better) | 20.2× |
| P/FCF | 36.5× | – |
| PEG | – | 22.09 |
| FCF yield | 2.7% (better) | 0.00% |
| Fair value | $156.77 | $46.16 |
| Margin of safety | −20.5% (better) | −92.0% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 1.7% (better) | −2.8% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −5.0% | – |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 4.0% (better) | −89.8% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 7.2% (better) | −89.8% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −8.5% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 39.5% | 54.8% (better) |
| Operating margin | 18.8% (better) | 5.6% |
| Net margin | 14.0% (better) | 1.9% |
| FCF margin | 10.6% (better) | 0.00% |
| Return on equity | 80.8% (better) | 3.2% |
| Return on invested capital | 28.5% (better) | 4.7% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 3.63 | 1.05 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.65 (better) | 4.74 |
| Interest coverage | 5.5× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.41 (better) | 1.03 |
| Altman Z-score | 4.29 (better) | 1.85 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.6% | – |
| Payout ratio | 45.3% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | −13.1% | – |
| Buyback yield | 3.9% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 5.5% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 75.0% | 75.0% |
| Held by insiders | 0.10% | 30.3% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$16.6M | $100K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.9% | 4.3% |
Go deeper
- MMM stock overview
- MMM income statement
- MMM valuation and score
- SOLV stock overview
- SOLV income statement
- SOLV valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.