PPG Industries vs Sherwin Williams
PPG and SHW side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How PPG and SHW compare
Sherwin Williams is the larger company, worth 3.1 times as much as PPG Industries ($84.5B against $27.1B).
On earnings, PPG Industries is cheaper: it trades at 17.5× trailing earnings, against 32.2× for Sherwin Williams.
Sherwin Williams grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (7.0% versus 6.4% for PPG Industries).
Sherwin Williams keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 10.7% compared with 9.4% at PPG Industries.
Both pay dividends: PPG Industries yields 1.8% and Sherwin Williams 0.91%.
PPG Industries scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 14 for Sherwin Williams), 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 | PPG | SHW |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $27.1B | $84.5B |
| Share price | $122.56 | $349.89 |
| Change, 1 year | 25.7% | 1.5% |
| Change, 5 years | −23.8% | 5.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.00 | 0.90 |
| Employees | 44K | 64K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 19 (better) | 14 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 5 | 5 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 4 | 4 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 17.5× (better) | 32.2× |
| P/S | 1.6× (better) | 3.4× |
| P/B | 3.2× (better) | 21.3× |
| EV/EBITDA | 11.2× | – |
| P/FCF | 21.2× (better) | 27.5× |
| PEG | 1.02 (better) | 3.23 |
| FCF yield | 4.7% (better) | 3.6% |
| Fair value | $147.48 | $234.30 |
| Margin of safety | 16.9% (better) | −49.3% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.4% | 7.0% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 2.8% | 5.1% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 57.6% (better) | 4.1% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 58.7% (better) | 6.1% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 9.3% (better) | 6.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 40.9% | 48.6% (better) |
| Net margin | 9.4% | 10.7% (better) |
| FCF margin | 7.7% | 12.4% (better) |
| Return on equity | 19.3% | 63.7% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.81 (better) | 2.97 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.79 | – |
| Current ratio | 1.58 (better) | 0.71 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.54 (better) | 3.14 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.8% (better) | 0.91% |
| Payout ratio | 40.9% | 29.3% |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 | 16 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 5.8% | 12.1% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 1.6% | 2.9% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 3.3% | 3.8% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 94.3% | 83.5% |
| Held by insiders | 0.10% | 0.32% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$15.5M | −$12.7M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 4 |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.2% | 2.5% |
Go deeper
- PPG stock overview
- PPG income statement
- PPG valuation and score
- SHW stock overview
- SHW income statement
- SHW valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.