CCK vs. VIPS: A Head-to-Head Stock Comparison

Updated on October 4, 2025

Here’s a clear look at CCK and VIPS, comparing key factors like historical performance, profitability, financial strength, growth, dividend, and valuation.

Company Profile

CCK is a standard domestic listing, while VIPS trades as an American Depositary Receipt (ADR), offering U.S. investors access to its foreign-listed shares.

Symbol	CCK	VIPS
Company Name	Crown Holdings, Inc.	Vipshop Holdings Limited
Country	United States	China
GICS Sector	Materials	Consumer Discretionary
GICS Industry	Containers & Packaging	Broadline Retail
Market Capitalization	11.30 billion USD	9.09 billion USD
Exchange	NYSE	NYSE
Listing Date	March 17, 1980	March 23, 2012
Security Type	Common Stock	ADR

Historical Performance

This chart compares the performance of CCK and VIPS by tracking the growth of an initial $10,000 investment in each. Use the tabs to select the desired time period. Data is adjusted for dividends and splits.

CCK vs. VIPS: Growth of a $10,000 investment over the past one year.

Historical Performance at a Glance

Symbol	CCK	VIPS
5-Day Price Return	0.37%	6.33%
13-Week Price Return	-6.21%	30.50%
26-Week Price Return	8.32%	20.27%
52-Week Price Return	1.95%	24.54%
Month-to-Date Return	-2.81%	17.32%
Year-to-Date Return	16.81%	45.81%
10-Day Avg. Volume	1.15M	3.19M
3-Month Avg. Volume	1.19M	2.85M
3-Month Volatility	21.05%	27.32%
Beta	0.78	0.85

Profitability

Return on Equity (TTM)

CCK

20.49%

Containers & Packaging Industry

Max: 36.99%
Q3: 19.86%
Median: 10.47%
Q1: 6.76%
Min: -0.20%

In the upper quartile for the Containers & Packaging industry, CCK’s Return on Equity of 20.49% signals a highly effective use of shareholder capital to drive profitability compared to most of its peers.

VIPS

17.61%

Broadline Retail Industry

Max: 47.53%
Q3: 31.20%
Median: 16.63%
Q1: 10.81%
Min: -7.57%

VIPS’s Return on Equity of 17.61% is on par with the norm for the Broadline Retail industry, indicating its profitability relative to shareholder equity is typical for the sector.

CCK vs. VIPS: A comparison of their Return on Equity (TTM) against their respective Containers & Packaging and Broadline Retail industry benchmarks.

Net Profit Margin (TTM)

CCK

4.64%

Containers & Packaging Industry

Max: 10.84%
Q3: 8.25%
Median: 4.91%
Q1: 3.65%
Min: -0.12%

CCK’s Net Profit Margin of 4.64% is aligned with the median group of its peers in the Containers & Packaging industry. This indicates its ability to convert revenue into profit is typical for the sector.

VIPS

6.53%

Broadline Retail Industry

Max: 24.63%
Q3: 12.77%
Median: 8.63%
Q1: 4.50%
Min: -1.62%

VIPS’s Net Profit Margin of 6.53% is aligned with the median group of its peers in the Broadline Retail industry. This indicates its ability to convert revenue into profit is typical for the sector.

CCK vs. VIPS: A comparison of their Net Profit Margin (TTM) against their respective Containers & Packaging and Broadline Retail industry benchmarks.

Operating Profit Margin (TTM)

CCK

12.89%

Containers & Packaging Industry

Max: 22.03%
Q3: 13.09%
Median: 8.06%
Q1: 6.46%
Min: -0.07%

CCK’s Operating Profit Margin of 12.89% is around the midpoint for the Containers & Packaging industry, indicating that its efficiency in managing core business operations is typical for the sector.

VIPS

7.65%

Broadline Retail Industry

Max: 27.48%
Q3: 17.60%
Median: 10.82%
Q1: 7.76%
Min: -6.73%

VIPS’s Operating Profit Margin of 7.65% is in the lower quartile for the Broadline Retail industry. This indicates weaker profitability from core operations, which may stem from inefficiencies or competitive pressures on pricing.

CCK vs. VIPS: A comparison of their Operating Profit Margin (TTM) against their respective Containers & Packaging and Broadline Retail industry benchmarks.

Profitability at a Glance

Symbol	CCK	VIPS
Return on Equity (TTM)	20.49%	17.61%
Return on Assets (TTM)	3.89%	9.47%
Net Profit Margin (TTM)	4.64%	6.53%
Operating Profit Margin (TTM)	12.89%	7.65%
Gross Profit Margin (TTM)	22.30%	23.33%

Financial Strength

Current Ratio (MRQ)

CCK

1.06

Containers & Packaging Industry

Max: 1.96
Q3: 1.45
Median: 1.33
Q1: 1.09
Min: 0.87

CCK’s Current Ratio of 1.06 falls into the lower quartile for the Containers & Packaging industry. This indicates a tighter liquidity situation and a more constrained capacity to handle short-term debt than many of its competitors.

VIPS

1.26

Broadline Retail Industry

Max: 3.54
Q3: 2.42
Median: 1.38
Q1: 1.20
Min: 0.69

VIPS’s Current Ratio of 1.26 aligns with the median group of the Broadline Retail industry, indicating that its short-term liquidity is in line with its sector peers.

CCK vs. VIPS: A comparison of their Current Ratio (MRQ) against their respective Containers & Packaging and Broadline Retail industry benchmarks.

Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ)

CCK

2.24

Containers & Packaging Industry

Max: 4.15
Q3: 2.03
Median: 1.20
Q1: 0.53
Min: 0.23

CCK’s leverage is in the upper quartile of the Containers & Packaging industry, with a Debt-to-Equity Ratio of 2.24. While this approach can boost equity growth, it also exposes the company to greater financial vulnerability.

VIPS

0.17

Broadline Retail Industry

Max: 2.01
Q3: 1.31
Median: 0.72
Q1: 0.32
Min: 0.00

Falling into the lower quartile for the Broadline Retail industry, VIPS’s Debt-to-Equity Ratio of 0.17 points to a conservative financing strategy. This results in lower financial risk but potentially limits strategic investments compared to more leveraged competitors.

CCK vs. VIPS: A comparison of their Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ) against their respective Containers & Packaging and Broadline Retail industry benchmarks.

Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM)

CCK

6.76

Containers & Packaging Industry

Max: 13.16
Q3: 8.10
Median: 3.38
Q1: 2.83
Min: 1.06

CCK’s Interest Coverage Ratio of 6.76 is positioned comfortably within the norm for the Containers & Packaging industry, indicating a standard and healthy capacity to cover its interest payments.

VIPS

150.47

Broadline Retail Industry

Max: 37.34
Q3: 21.16
Median: 8.60
Q1: 3.22
Min: -19.29

With an Interest Coverage Ratio of 150.47, VIPS demonstrates a superior capacity to service its debt, placing it well above the typical range for the Broadline Retail industry. This stems from either robust earnings or a conservative debt load.

CCK vs. VIPS: A comparison of their Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM) against their respective Containers & Packaging and Broadline Retail industry benchmarks.

Financial Strength at a Glance

Symbol	CCK	VIPS
Current Ratio (MRQ)	1.06	1.26
Quick Ratio (MRQ)	0.67	1.11
Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ)	2.24	0.17
Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM)	6.76	150.47

Growth

Revenue Growth

CCK vs. VIPS: A side-by-side comparison of their Revenue Growth for the MRQ (YoY), TTM (YoY), 3-Year CAGR, and 5-Year CAGR periods.

EPS Growth

CCK vs. VIPS: A side-by-side comparison of their EPS Growth for the MRQ (YoY), TTM (YoY), 3-Year CAGR, and 5-Year CAGR periods.

Dividend

Dividend Yield (TTM)

CCK

1.06%

Containers & Packaging Industry

Max: 7.14%
Q3: 4.65%
Median: 3.69%
Q1: 2.00%
Min: 0.00%

CCK’s Dividend Yield of 1.06% is in the lower quartile for the Containers & Packaging industry. This suggests the company’s strategy likely favors retaining earnings for growth over providing a high dividend income.

VIPS

0.00%

Broadline Retail Industry

Max: 4.06%
Q3: 2.07%
Median: 0.37%
Q1: 0.00%
Min: 0.00%

VIPS currently does not pay a dividend, resulting in a yield of 0%. This is a common strategy for growth-focused companies that prioritize reinvesting earnings, though it may be less typical in mature, income-oriented sectors.

CCK vs. VIPS: A comparison of their Dividend Yield (TTM) against their respective Containers & Packaging and Broadline Retail industry benchmarks.

Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM)

CCK

12.16%

Containers & Packaging Industry

Max: 222.75%
Q3: 132.16%
Median: 65.79%
Q1: 28.53%
Min: 0.00%

CCK’s Dividend Payout Ratio of 12.16% is in the lower quartile for the Containers & Packaging industry. This suggests a conservative dividend policy, with a strategic focus on reinvesting profits for future growth.

VIPS

0.00%

Broadline Retail Industry

Max: 114.82%
Q3: 62.39%
Median: 28.55%
Q1: 0.00%
Min: 0.00%

VIPS has a Dividend Payout Ratio of 0%, indicating it does not currently pay a dividend. This is a common strategy for growth-oriented companies that reinvest all profits back into the business.

CCK vs. VIPS: A comparison of their Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM) against their respective Containers & Packaging and Broadline Retail industry benchmarks.

Dividend at a Glance

Symbol	CCK	VIPS
Dividend Yield (TTM)	1.06%	0.00%
Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM)	12.16%	0.00%

Valuation

Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM)

CCK

20.14

Containers & Packaging Industry

Max: 24.22
Q3: 20.28
Median: 17.07
Q1: 15.06
Min: 7.79

CCK’s P/E Ratio of 20.14 is within the middle range for the Containers & Packaging industry. This suggests its valuation is in line with the sector average, representing neither a significant premium nor a discount compared to its peers.

VIPS

9.96

Broadline Retail Industry

Max: 62.76
Q3: 32.50
Median: 17.65
Q1: 12.08
Min: 6.87

In the lower quartile for the Broadline Retail industry, VIPS’s P/E Ratio of 9.96 suggests the stock may be undervalued compared to its peers, potentially presenting an attractive entry point for investors.

CCK vs. VIPS: A comparison of their Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM) against their respective Containers & Packaging and Broadline Retail industry benchmarks.

Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM)

CCK

0.93

Containers & Packaging Industry

Max: 1.99
Q3: 1.17
Median: 0.94
Q1: 0.55
Min: 0.31

CCK’s P/S Ratio of 0.93 aligns with the market consensus for the Containers & Packaging industry. This suggests its valuation, based on sales, is seen as standard and is on par with its competitors.

VIPS

0.65

Broadline Retail Industry

Max: 5.19
Q3: 3.25
Median: 2.13
Q1: 1.01
Min: 0.21

In the lower quartile for the Broadline Retail industry, VIPS’s P/S Ratio of 0.65 indicates its revenue is valued more conservatively than most of its peers. This could present a compelling opportunity if the market has overlooked its sales-generating capabilities.

CCK vs. VIPS: A comparison of their Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM) against their respective Containers & Packaging and Broadline Retail industry benchmarks.

Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ)

CCK

4.15

Containers & Packaging Industry

Max: 4.79
Q3: 3.32
Median: 2.14
Q1: 1.60
Min: 0.89

CCK’s P/B Ratio of 4.15 is in the upper tier for the Containers & Packaging industry. This indicates that investors are paying a premium relative to the company’s net assets, a valuation that hinges on its ability to generate superior profits.

VIPS

1.40

Broadline Retail Industry

Max: 8.81
Q3: 5.19
Median: 3.42
Q1: 1.75
Min: 0.73

VIPS’s P/B Ratio of 1.40 is in the lower quartile for the Broadline Retail industry. From a value investing perspective, this is favorable, as it suggests the stock is trading at a discount to its net asset value and may offer a greater margin of safety.

CCK vs. VIPS: A comparison of their Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ) against their respective Containers & Packaging and Broadline Retail industry benchmarks.

Valuation at a Glance

Symbol	CCK	VIPS
Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM)	20.14	9.96
Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM)	0.93	0.65
Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ)	4.15	1.40
Price-to-Free Cash Flow Ratio (TTM)	11.03	--