Seek Returns logo

RL vs. SW: A Head-to-Head Stock Comparison

Updated on

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

Company Profile

SymbolRLSW
Company NameRalph Lauren CorporationSmurfit Westrock Plc
CountryUnited StatesIreland
GICS SectorConsumer DiscretionaryMaterials
GICS IndustryTextiles, Apparel & Luxury GoodsContainers & Packaging
Market Capitalization19.45 billion USD21.05 billion USD
ExchangeNYSENYSE
Listing DateJune 12, 1997June 17, 2008
Security TypeCommon StockCommon Stock

Historical Performance

This chart compares the performance of RL and SW 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.

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

Historical Performance at a Glance

SymbolRLSW
5-Day Price Return2.40%-5.31%
13-Week Price Return12.35%-13.94%
26-Week Price Return40.27%-11.64%
52-Week Price Return66.88%-13.55%
Month-to-Date Return2.40%-5.31%
Year-to-Date Return39.02%-25.16%
10-Day Avg. Volume0.58M3.93M
3-Month Avg. Volume0.67M3.96M
3-Month Volatility28.50%30.74%
Beta1.571.05

Profitability

Return on Equity (TTM)

RL

31.52%

Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods Industry

Max
42.05%
Q3
24.41%
Median
17.18%
Q1
7.87%
Min
-8.23%

In the upper quartile for the Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods industry, RL’s Return on Equity of 31.52% signals a highly effective use of shareholder capital to drive profitability compared to most of its peers.

SW

2.94%

Containers & Packaging Industry

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

SW’s Return on Equity of 2.94% is in the lower quartile for the Containers & Packaging industry. This indicates a less efficient generation of profit from its equity base when compared to its competitors.

RL vs. SW: A comparison of their Return on Equity (TTM) against their respective Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods and Containers & Packaging industry benchmarks.

Net Profit Margin (TTM)

RL

10.91%

Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods Industry

Max
21.16%
Q3
13.26%
Median
6.06%
Q1
3.93%
Min
-3.05%

RL’s Net Profit Margin of 10.91% is aligned with the median group of its peers in the Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods industry. This indicates its ability to convert revenue into profit is typical for the sector.

SW

1.18%

Containers & Packaging Industry

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

Falling into the lower quartile for the Containers & Packaging industry, SW’s Net Profit Margin of 1.18% indicates weaker profitability. This means the company retains a smaller portion of each dollar in sales as profit compared to its competitors.

RL vs. SW: A comparison of their Net Profit Margin (TTM) against their respective Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods and Containers & Packaging industry benchmarks.

Operating Profit Margin (TTM)

RL

13.69%

Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods Industry

Max
29.47%
Q3
20.87%
Median
11.68%
Q1
6.26%
Min
-0.12%

RL’s Operating Profit Margin of 13.69% is around the midpoint for the Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods industry, indicating that its efficiency in managing core business operations is typical for the sector.

SW

4.20%

Containers & Packaging Industry

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

SW’s Operating Profit Margin of 4.20% is in the lower quartile for the Containers & Packaging industry. This indicates weaker profitability from core operations, which may stem from inefficiencies or competitive pressures on pricing.

RL vs. SW: A comparison of their Operating Profit Margin (TTM) against their respective Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods and Containers & Packaging industry benchmarks.

Profitability at a Glance

SymbolRLSW
Return on Equity (TTM)31.52%2.94%
Return on Assets (TTM)11.08%1.17%
Net Profit Margin (TTM)10.91%1.18%
Operating Profit Margin (TTM)13.69%4.20%
Gross Profit Margin (TTM)69.03%19.46%

Financial Strength

Current Ratio (MRQ)

RL

1.84

Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods Industry

Max
2.94
Q3
2.22
Median
1.61
Q1
1.48
Min
0.74

RL’s Current Ratio of 1.84 aligns with the median group of the Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods industry, indicating that its short-term liquidity is in line with its sector peers.

SW

1.45

Containers & Packaging Industry

Max
1.96
Q3
1.45
Median
1.33
Q1
1.09
Min
0.87

SW’s Current Ratio of 1.45 aligns with the median group of the Containers & Packaging industry, indicating that its short-term liquidity is in line with its sector peers.

RL vs. SW: A comparison of their Current Ratio (MRQ) against their respective Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods and Containers & Packaging industry benchmarks.

Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ)

RL

0.75

Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods Industry

Max
2.79
Q3
1.32
Median
0.60
Q1
0.27
Min
0.00

RL’s Debt-to-Equity Ratio of 0.75 is typical for the Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods industry, indicating its use of leverage is in line with the sector norm. This suggests a balanced approach to its capital structure.

SW

0.79

Containers & Packaging Industry

Max
4.15
Q3
2.03
Median
1.20
Q1
0.53
Min
0.23

SW’s Debt-to-Equity Ratio of 0.79 is typical for the Containers & Packaging industry, indicating its use of leverage is in line with the sector norm. This suggests a balanced approach to its capital structure.

RL vs. SW: A comparison of their Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ) against their respective Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods and Containers & Packaging industry benchmarks.

Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM)

RL

85.38

Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods Industry

Max
57.00
Q3
32.83
Median
7.87
Q1
3.52
Min
-32.49

With an Interest Coverage Ratio of 85.38, RL demonstrates a superior capacity to service its debt, placing it well above the typical range for the Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods industry. This stems from either robust earnings or a conservative debt load.

SW

2.41

Containers & Packaging Industry

Max
13.16
Q3
8.10
Median
3.38
Q1
2.83
Min
1.06

In the lower quartile for the Containers & Packaging industry, SW’s Interest Coverage Ratio of 2.41 indicates a tighter cushion for servicing debt, suggesting less financial flexibility than many of its competitors.

RL vs. SW: A comparison of their Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM) against their respective Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods and Containers & Packaging industry benchmarks.

Financial Strength at a Glance

SymbolRLSW
Current Ratio (MRQ)1.841.45
Quick Ratio (MRQ)1.250.95
Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ)0.750.79
Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM)85.382.41

Growth

Revenue Growth

RL vs. SW: 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

RL vs. SW: 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)

RL

1.05%

Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods Industry

Max
5.22%
Q3
3.07%
Median
2.34%
Q1
1.11%
Min
0.00%

RL’s Dividend Yield of 1.05% is in the lower quartile for the Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods industry. This suggests the company’s strategy likely favors retaining earnings for growth over providing a high dividend income.

SW

3.65%

Containers & Packaging Industry

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

SW’s Dividend Yield of 3.65% is consistent with its peers in the Containers & Packaging industry, providing a dividend return that is standard for its sector.

RL vs. SW: A comparison of their Dividend Yield (TTM) against their respective Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods and Containers & Packaging industry benchmarks.

Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM)

RL

25.71%

Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods Industry

Max
156.63%
Q3
94.60%
Median
52.65%
Q1
35.04%
Min
0.00%

RL’s Dividend Payout Ratio of 25.71% is in the lower quartile for the Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods industry. This suggests a conservative dividend policy, with a strategic focus on reinvesting profits for future growth.

SW

85.87%

Containers & Packaging Industry

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

SW’s Dividend Payout Ratio of 85.87% is within the typical range for the Containers & Packaging industry, suggesting a balanced approach between shareholder payouts and company reinvestment.

RL vs. SW: A comparison of their Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM) against their respective Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods and Containers & Packaging industry benchmarks.

Dividend at a Glance

SymbolRLSW
Dividend Yield (TTM)1.05%3.65%
Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM)25.71%85.87%

Valuation

Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM)

RL

24.57

Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods Industry

Max
48.15
Q3
33.82
Median
20.70
Q1
14.57
Min
7.12

RL’s P/E Ratio of 24.57 is within the middle range for the Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods industry. This suggests its valuation is in line with the sector average, representing neither a significant premium nor a discount compared to its peers.

SW

39.96

Containers & Packaging Industry

Max
24.22
Q3
20.28
Median
17.07
Q1
15.06
Min
7.79

At 39.96, SW’s P/E Ratio is exceptionally high, exceeding the typical maximum for the Containers & Packaging industry. This suggests the stock may be significantly overvalued compared to its peers and implies high market expectations that could be difficult to meet.

RL vs. SW: A comparison of their Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM) against their respective Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods and Containers & Packaging industry benchmarks.

Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM)

RL

2.68

Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods Industry

Max
4.35
Q3
3.06
Median
1.66
Q1
0.83
Min
0.26

RL’s P/S Ratio of 2.68 aligns with the market consensus for the Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods industry. This suggests its valuation, based on sales, is seen as standard and is on par with its competitors.

SW

0.47

Containers & Packaging Industry

Max
1.99
Q3
1.17
Median
0.94
Q1
0.55
Min
0.31

In the lower quartile for the Containers & Packaging industry, SW’s P/S Ratio of 0.47 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.

RL vs. SW: A comparison of their Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM) against their respective Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods and Containers & Packaging industry benchmarks.

Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ)

RL

6.61

Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods Industry

Max
9.74
Q3
5.59
Median
3.41
Q1
2.01
Min
0.56

RL’s P/B Ratio of 6.61 is in the upper tier for the Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods 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.

SW

1.23

Containers & Packaging Industry

Max
4.79
Q3
3.32
Median
2.14
Q1
1.60
Min
0.89

SW’s P/B Ratio of 1.23 is in the lower quartile for the Containers & Packaging 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.

RL vs. SW: A comparison of their Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ) against their respective Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods and Containers & Packaging industry benchmarks.

Valuation at a Glance

SymbolRLSW
Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM)24.5739.96
Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM)2.680.47
Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ)6.611.23
Price-to-Free Cash Flow Ratio (TTM)19.1640.43