Sylvamo vs Scotts Miracle-Gro
Add, change or remove companies; up to four.
KIRA’s take AI analyst
I put Sylvamo and Scotts Miracle-Gro side by side, using each one’s latest annual report. Here is what stands out:
- Scotts Miracle-Gro is the larger business, with $3.4B of revenue in fiscal 2025 against $3.4B for Sylvamo.
- Scotts Miracle-Gro grew revenue faster (−3.9%, against −11.2%).
- Scotts Miracle-Gro kept more of each dollar of sales as operating profit (10.5% operating margin, against 7.5%).
- Scotts Miracle-Gro turned more of its sales into free cash flow (8.0% FCF margin, against 1.3%).
- Scotts Miracle-Gro earned a higher return on the capital invested in it (13.4%, against 10.9%).
- Investors pay more for each dollar of Scotts Miracle-Gro’s earnings: a P/E of 49.9x against 17.4x for Sylvamo.
Who comes out ahead
Of the 9 measures where higher (or lower) is clearly better, how many each company leads.
Sylvamo
SLVM
3/9
5-year growthNet debt / EBITDAShare count change
Scotts Miracle-Gro
SMG
6/9
Revenue growthOperating marginNet marginFCF marginReturn on capitalPiotroski F-score
Side by side
Best in the row
| Latest fiscal year | SLVM FY25 | SMG FY25 |
|---|---|---|
| Size | ||
| Market cap | $1.3B | $3.5B |
| Revenue | $3.4B | $3.4B |
| Free cash flow | $44.0M | $274M |
| Net income | $132M | $145M |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth | −11.2% | −3.9% |
| 5-year growth | 7.0% | −3.8% |
| Share count change | −3.1% | 3.4% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | — | 30.6% |
| Operating margin | 7.5% | 10.5% |
| Net margin | 3.9% | 4.3% |
| FCF margin | 1.3% | 8.0% |
| Return on capital | 10.9% | 13.4% |
| Return on equity | 14.6% | — |
| Balance sheet | ||
| Net debt | $651M | $2.1B |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.5x | 4.8x |
| Dividends and buybacks | $155M | $173M |
| Valuation & quality | ||
| P/E | 17.4x | 49.9x |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 6 |
Ten years
Revenue
Operating margin
Free cash flow
Return on capital
Each company's latest fiscal year; fiscal years end in different months. The best value in each row is highlighted where higher (or lower) is clearly better. Not investment advice.