Packaging Corp of America vs Sylvamo
PKG and SLVM side by side, both in paper and allied products. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How PKG and SLVM compare
Packaging Corp of America is the larger company, worth 15 times as much as Sylvamo ($22.5B against $1.5B).
Sylvamo grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (12.4% versus 12.0% for Packaging Corp of America).
Packaging Corp of America keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 7.4% compared with −4.9% at Sylvamo.
Both pay dividends: Packaging Corp of America yields 2.2% and Sylvamo 4.6%.
Packaging Corp of America scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 8 for Sylvamo), 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 | PKG | SLVM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $22.5B | $1.5B |
| Share price | $253.01 | $38.78 |
| Change, 1 year | 26.1% | −9.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 90.1% | 22.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.65 | 0.64 |
| Employees | 17K | 6,500 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 (better) | 8 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 1 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 31.2× | – |
| P/S | 2.3× | 0.4× (better) |
| P/B | 4.7× | 2.1× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 13.6× | 8.1× (better) |
| P/FCF | 32.8× | – |
| FCF yield | 3.0% (better) | −3.4% |
| Fair value | $169.40 | $60.17 |
| Margin of safety | −49.4% | 35.5% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 12.0% | 12.4% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.2% | 7.0% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −18.6% (better) | −200% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −17.9% (better) | −204% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 12.1% (better) | −3.4% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 20.5% (better) | 17.8% |
| Operating margin | 11.2% (better) | 2.8% |
| Net margin | 7.4% (better) | −4.9% |
| FCF margin | 7.0% (better) | −1.4% |
| Return on equity | 15.2% (better) | −21.0% |
| Return on invested capital | 10.2% (better) | 4.8% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.83 (better) | 1.22 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.73 (better) | 2.77 |
| Interest coverage | – | 1.7× |
| Current ratio | 2.87 (better) | 1.29 |
| Altman Z-score | 4.06 (better) | 2.96 |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.2% | 4.6% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 64.6% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 8.2% | – |
| Buyback yield | 0.94% (better) | 0.00% |
| Shareholder yield | 3.1% | 4.6% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 98.1% | 99.7% |
| Held by insiders | 1.7% | 17.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$15.0M | −$658K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.2% | 7.9% |
Go deeper
- PKG stock overview
- PKG income statement
- PKG valuation and score
- SLVM stock overview
- SLVM income statement
- SLVM valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.