Paper, Lumber & Forest Products
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
CLW vs CASY vs MUSA vs SLVM vs ARKO
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Specialty Retail
Specialty Retail
Paper, Lumber & Forest Products
Specialty Retail
CLW vs CASY vs MUSA vs SLVM vs ARKO — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Paper, Lumber & Forest Products | Specialty Retail | Specialty Retail | Paper, Lumber & Forest Products | Specialty Retail |
| Market Cap | $221M | $31.59B | $10.75B | $1.97B | $753M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $1.54B | $16.98B | $19.68B | $3.43B | $7.59B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-27M | $650M | $554M | $180M | $27M |
| Gross Margin | 5.1% | 23.9% | 5.5% | 21.2% | 11.1% |
| Operating Margin | -0.1% | 6.3% | 4.3% | 9.5% | 1.7% |
| Forward P/E | — | 47.1x | 19.8x | 15.6x | 25.8x |
| Total Debt | $422M | $2.96B | $3.25B | $804M | $3.95B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $31K | $327M | $29M | $205M | $305M |
CLW vs CASY vs MUSA vs SLVM vs ARKO — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Sep 21 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clearwater Paper Co… (CLW) | 100 | 35.7 | -64.3% |
| Casey's General Sto… (CASY) | 100 | 451.6 | +351.6% |
| Murphy USA Inc. (MUSA) | 100 | 347.5 | +247.5% |
| Sylvamo Corporation (SLVM) | 100 | 133.8 | +33.8% |
| Arko Corp. (ARKO) | 100 | 66.4 | -33.6% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: CLW vs CASY vs MUSA vs SLVM vs ARKO
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
CLW ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth.
- 12.4% revenue growth vs ARKO's -12.5%
CASY is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if sleep-well-at-night is your priority.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.29, Low D/E 84.3%, current ratio 0.92x
- Beta 0.29 vs CLW's 1.31
- +83.1% vs CLW's -47.4%
MUSA is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding and valuation efficiency.
- 8.0% 10Y total return vs CASY's 6.4%
- PEG 1.53 vs CASY's 3.02
- 11.7% ROA vs CLW's -1.7%, ROIC 15.8% vs 1.2%
SLVM carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 3 yrs, beta 0.79, yield 3.4%
- Rev growth 1.4%, EPS growth 21.1%, 3Y rev CAGR 10.1%
- Beta 0.79, yield 3.4%, current ratio 1.56x
- Lower P/E (15.6x vs 25.8x)
Among these 5 stocks, ARKO doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 12.4% revenue growth vs ARKO's -12.5% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (15.6x vs 25.8x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 5.2% margin vs CLW's -1.8% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.29 vs CLW's 1.31 | |
| Dividends | 3.4% yield, 3-year raise streak, vs CASY's 0.2%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +83.1% vs CLW's -47.4% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 11.7% ROA vs CLW's -1.7%, ROIC 15.8% vs 1.2% |
CLW vs CASY vs MUSA vs SLVM vs ARKO — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
CLW vs CASY vs MUSA vs SLVM vs ARKO — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
SLVM leads in 1 of 6 categories
CASY leads 1 • CLW leads 0 • MUSA leads 0 • ARKO leads 0 • 4 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — CASY and MUSA and SLVM each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MUSA is the larger business by revenue, generating $19.7B annually — 12.8x CLW's $1.5B. SLVM is the more profitable business, keeping 5.2% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to CLW's -1.8%. On growth, MUSA holds the edge at +6.5% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $1.5B | $17.0B | $19.7B | $3.4B | $7.6B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $69M | $1.5B | $1.1B | $503M | $264M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$27M | $650M | $554M | $180M | $27M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$54M | $667M | $555M | $106M | $19M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +5.1% | +23.9% | +5.5% | +21.2% | +11.1% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -0.1% | +6.3% | +4.3% | +9.5% | +1.7% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -1.8% | +3.8% | +2.8% | +5.2% | +0.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -3.5% | +3.9% | +2.8% | +3.1% | +0.3% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -4.7% | +0.3% | +6.5% | -12.3% | -3.1% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -110.5% | +49.8% | +176.8% | -37.9% | +41.7% |
Valuation Metrics
SLVM leads this category, winning 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 6.1x trailing earnings, SLVM trades at a 90% valuation discount to CASY's 58.1x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), MUSA offers better value at 1.85x vs CASY's 3.73x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $221M | $31.6B | $10.8B | $2.0B | $753M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $642M | $34.2B | $14.0B | $2.6B | $4.4B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -11.04x | 58.13x | 24.12x | 6.09x | 44.73x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 47.05x | 19.84x | 15.58x | 25.81x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 3.73x | 1.85x | — | 2.77x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 5.76x | 28.51x | 13.71x | 4.25x | 18.58x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.14x | 1.98x | 0.55x | 0.52x | 0.10x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.27x | 9.06x | 18.20x | 2.17x | 2.10x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 54.03x | 28.73x | 7.93x | 11.54x |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — CLW and SLVM each lead in 3 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
MUSA delivers a 89.5% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $90 in annual profit, vs $-3 for CLW. CLW carries lower financial leverage with a 0.51x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to ARKO's 10.76x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), SLVM scores 8/9 vs MUSA's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -3.3% | +23.7% | +89.5% | +18.4% | +7.0% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -1.7% | +10.0% | +11.7% | +6.7% | +0.8% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +1.2% | +11.3% | +15.8% | +21.6% | +2.3% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +1.4% | +12.5% | +20.0% | +21.7% | +3.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.51x | 0.84x | 5.22x | 0.95x | 10.76x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $422M | $2.6B | $3.2B | $599M | $3.6B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $30,700 | $327M | $29M | $205M | $305M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $422M | $3.0B | $3.3B | $804M | $4.0B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -4.32x | 13.45x | 7.47x | 7.03x | 2.56x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
CASY leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in MUSA five years ago would be worth $41,821 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $4,369 for CLW. Over the past 12 months, CASY leads with a +83.1% total return vs CLW's -47.4%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CASY at 55.0% vs CLW's -25.2% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -22.7% | +53.2% | +43.5% | -6.7% | +50.8% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -47.4% | +83.1% | +15.3% | -23.2% | +66.2% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -58.2% | +272.4% | +106.0% | +6.4% | -12.5% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -56.3% | +285.1% | +318.2% | +97.9% | -30.7% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -77.2% | +638.3% | +803.3% | +97.9% | -27.4% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -25.2% | +55.0% | +27.2% | +2.1% | -4.4% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — CASY and MUSA each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
MUSA is the less volatile stock with a -0.23 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than CLW's 1.31 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. CASY currently trades 98.1% from its 52-week high vs CLW's 44.2% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.31x | 0.29x | -0.23x | 0.79x | 1.14x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $30.96 | $867.40 | $609.82 | $60.51 | $7.08 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $11.73 | $430.00 | $345.23 | $37.09 | $3.71 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +44.2% | +98.1% | +95.3% | +72.2% | +94.8% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 49.7 | 76.8 | 64.0 | 59.3 | 56.2 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 198K | 545K | 354K | 322K | 919K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — CASY and SLVM each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: CLW as "Buy", CASY as "Buy", MUSA as "Hold", SLVM as "Buy", ARKO as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 14.4% upside for SLVM (target: $50) vs -19.1% for CASY (target: $688). For income investors, SLVM offers the higher dividend yield at 3.38% vs CASY's 0.23%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Hold | Buy | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $15.50 | $688.10 | $504.25 | $50.00 | $7.58 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 10 | 25 | 11 | 2 | 4 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +0.2% | +0.4% | +3.4% | +1.8% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 19 | 5 | 3 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $1.94 | $2.13 | $1.48 | $0.12 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +7.8% | +0.0% | +6.0% | +3.5% | +3.7% |
SLVM leads in 1 of 6 categories (Valuation Metrics). CASY leads in 1 (Total Returns). 4 tied.
CLW vs CASY vs MUSA vs SLVM vs ARKO: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is CLW or CASY or MUSA or SLVM or ARKO a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Clearwater Paper Corporation (CLW) is the stronger pick with 12.
4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -12. 5% for Arko Corp. (ARKO). Sylvamo Corporation (SLVM) offers the better valuation at 6. 1x trailing P/E (15. 6x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Clearwater Paper Corporation (CLW) a "Buy" — based on 10 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.
02Which has the better valuation — CLW or CASY or MUSA or SLVM or ARKO?
On trailing P/E, Sylvamo Corporation (SLVM) is the cheapest at 6.
1x versus Casey's General Stores, Inc. at 58. 1x. On forward P/E, Sylvamo Corporation is actually cheaper at 15. 6x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Murphy USA Inc. wins at 1. 53x versus Casey's General Stores, Inc. 's 3. 02x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.
03Which is the better long-term investment — CLW or CASY or MUSA or SLVM or ARKO?
Over the past 5 years, Murphy USA Inc.
(MUSA) delivered a total return of +318. 2%, compared to -56. 3% for Clearwater Paper Corporation (CLW). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MUSA returned +803. 3% versus CLW's -77. 2%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — CLW or CASY or MUSA or SLVM or ARKO?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Murphy USA Inc.
(MUSA) is the lower-risk stock at -0. 23β versus Clearwater Paper Corporation's 1. 31β — meaning CLW is approximately -667% more volatile than MUSA relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Clearwater Paper Corporation (CLW) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 51% versus 11% for Arko Corp. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — CLW or CASY or MUSA or SLVM or ARKO?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Clearwater Paper Corporation (CLW) is pulling ahead at 12.
4% versus -12. 5% for Arko Corp. (ARKO). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Sylvamo Corporation grew EPS 21. 1% year-over-year, compared to -110. 6% for Clearwater Paper Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, SLVM leads at 10. 1% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.
06Which has better profit margins — CLW or CASY or MUSA or SLVM or ARKO?
Sylvamo Corporation (SLVM) is the more profitable company, earning 8.
0% net margin versus -1. 3% for Clearwater Paper Corporation — meaning it keeps 8. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: SLVM leads at 11. 8% versus 1. 2% for CLW. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — SLVM leads at 24. 9%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.
07Is CLW or CASY or MUSA or SLVM or ARKO more undervalued right now?
The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.
By this metric, Murphy USA Inc. (MUSA) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 53x versus Casey's General Stores, Inc. 's 3. 02x. Both stocks trade at elevated growth-adjusted valuations, so expected growth needs to materialise. On forward earnings alone, Sylvamo Corporation (SLVM) trades at 15. 6x forward P/E versus 47. 1x for Casey's General Stores, Inc. — 31. 5x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for SLVM: 14. 4% to $50. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — CLW or CASY or MUSA or SLVM or ARKO?
In this comparison, SLVM (3.
4% yield), ARKO (1. 8% yield), MUSA (0. 4% yield), CASY (0. 2% yield) pay a dividend. CLW does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is CLW or CASY or MUSA or SLVM or ARKO better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Murphy USA Inc.
(MUSA) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0. 23), +803. 3% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (MUSA: +803. 3%, CLW: -77. 2%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.
10What are the main differences between CLW and CASY and MUSA and SLVM and ARKO?
These companies operate in different sectors (CLW (Basic Materials) and CASY (Consumer Cyclical) and MUSA (Consumer Cyclical) and SLVM (Basic Materials) and ARKO (Consumer Cyclical)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: CLW is a small-cap quality compounder stock; CASY is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; MUSA is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; SLVM is a small-cap deep-value stock; ARKO is a small-cap quality compounder stock. SLVM, ARKO pay a dividend while CLW, CASY, MUSA do not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.