SHW Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

PPG Industries has a net margin of 9.06% compared to Sherwin-Williams's net margin of -12.93%. Sherwin-Williams's return on equity of 69.91% beat PPG Industries's return on equity of 14.3%.

Sherwin-Williams has a consensus price target of $380.93, signalling upside risk potential of 14.72%. On the other hand PPG Industries has an analysts' consensus of $131.55 which suggests that it could grow by 32.68%. Given that PPG Industries has higher upside potential than Sherwin-Williams, analysts believe PPG Industries is more attractive than Sherwin-Williams.

Sherwin-Williams has a beta of 1.255, which suggesting that the stock is 25.548% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison PPG Industries has a beta of 1.159, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 15.905%.

Sherwin-Williams has a quarterly dividend of $0.79 per share corresponding to a yield of 0.88%. PPG Industries offers a yield of 2.71% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.68 per share. Sherwin-Williams pays 26.98% of its earnings as a dividend. PPG Industries pays out 55.74% of its earnings as a dividend. Both of these payout ratios are sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Sherwin-Williams quarterly revenues are $5.3B, which are larger than PPG Industries quarterly revenues of $2.2B. Sherwin-Williams's net income of $480.1M is higher than PPG Industries's net income of -$280M. Notably, Sherwin-Williams's price-to-earnings ratio is 31.47x while PPG Industries's PE ratio is 20.96x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Sherwin-Williams is 3.65x versus 1.47x for PPG Industries. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Paramount Gold Nevada has a net margin of 9.06% compared to Sherwin-Williams's net margin of --. Sherwin-Williams's return on equity of 69.91% beat Paramount Gold Nevada's return on equity of --.

Sherwin-Williams has a consensus price target of $380.93, signalling upside risk potential of 14.72%. On the other hand Paramount Gold Nevada has an analysts' consensus of $1.40 which suggests that it could grow by 288.89%. Given that Paramount Gold Nevada has higher upside potential than Sherwin-Williams, analysts believe Paramount Gold Nevada is more attractive than Sherwin-Williams.

Sherwin-Williams has a beta of 1.255, which suggesting that the stock is 25.548% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Paramount Gold Nevada has a beta of 1.856, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 85.622%.

Sherwin-Williams has a quarterly dividend of $0.79 per share corresponding to a yield of 0.88%. Paramount Gold Nevada offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Sherwin-Williams pays 26.98% of its earnings as a dividend. Paramount Gold Nevada pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend. Sherwin-Williams's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Sherwin-Williams quarterly revenues are $5.3B, which are larger than Paramount Gold Nevada quarterly revenues of --. Sherwin-Williams's net income of $480.1M is higher than Paramount Gold Nevada's net income of -$2M. Notably, Sherwin-Williams's price-to-earnings ratio is 31.47x while Paramount Gold Nevada's PE ratio is --. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Sherwin-Williams is 3.65x versus -- for Paramount Gold Nevada. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

RPM International has a net margin of 9.06% compared to Sherwin-Williams's net margin of 9.93%. Sherwin-Williams's return on equity of 69.91% beat RPM International's return on equity of 25.92%.

Sherwin-Williams has a consensus price target of $380.93, signalling upside risk potential of 14.72%. On the other hand RPM International has an analysts' consensus of $134.77 which suggests that it could grow by 24.53%. Given that RPM International has higher upside potential than Sherwin-Williams, analysts believe RPM International is more attractive than Sherwin-Williams.

Sherwin-Williams has a beta of 1.255, which suggesting that the stock is 25.548% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison RPM International has a beta of 1.058, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 5.843%.

Sherwin-Williams has a quarterly dividend of $0.79 per share corresponding to a yield of 0.88%. RPM International offers a yield of 1.79% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.51 per share. Sherwin-Williams pays 26.98% of its earnings as a dividend. RPM International pays out 39.41% of its earnings as a dividend. Both of these payout ratios are sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Sherwin-Williams quarterly revenues are $5.3B, which are larger than RPM International quarterly revenues of $1.8B. Sherwin-Williams's net income of $480.1M is higher than RPM International's net income of $183.2M. Notably, Sherwin-Williams's price-to-earnings ratio is 31.47x while RPM International's PE ratio is 21.39x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Sherwin-Williams is 3.65x versus 1.89x for RPM International. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Steel Dynamics has a net margin of 9.06% compared to Sherwin-Williams's net margin of 5.35%. Sherwin-Williams's return on equity of 69.91% beat Steel Dynamics's return on equity of 17.07%.

Sherwin-Williams has a consensus price target of $380.93, signalling upside risk potential of 14.72%. On the other hand Steel Dynamics has an analysts' consensus of $146.09 which suggests that it could grow by 33.77%. Given that Steel Dynamics has higher upside potential than Sherwin-Williams, analysts believe Steel Dynamics is more attractive than Sherwin-Williams.

Sherwin-Williams has a beta of 1.255, which suggesting that the stock is 25.548% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Steel Dynamics has a beta of 1.347, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 34.654%.

Sherwin-Williams has a quarterly dividend of $0.79 per share corresponding to a yield of 0.88%. Steel Dynamics offers a yield of 1.72% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.50 per share. Sherwin-Williams pays 26.98% of its earnings as a dividend. Steel Dynamics pays out 18.39% of its earnings as a dividend. Both of these payout ratios are sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Sherwin-Williams quarterly revenues are $5.3B, which are larger than Steel Dynamics quarterly revenues of $3.9B. Sherwin-Williams's net income of $480.1M is higher than Steel Dynamics's net income of $207.3M. Notably, Sherwin-Williams's price-to-earnings ratio is 31.47x while Steel Dynamics's PE ratio is 11.14x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Sherwin-Williams is 3.65x versus 0.97x for Steel Dynamics. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.