DAC vs MATX

For growth investors, Danaos Corporation (DAC) is the stronger pick with 2.

8% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -2. 3% for Matson, Inc. (MATX). Danaos Corporation (DAC) offers the better valuation at 4. 9x trailing P/E (5. 3x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Matson, Inc. (MATX) a "Buy" — based on 11 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.

On trailing P/E, Danaos Corporation (DAC) is the cheapest at 4.

9x versus Matson, Inc. at 13. 0x. On forward P/E, Danaos Corporation is actually cheaper at 5. 3x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Danaos Corporation wins at 0. 11x versus Matson, Inc. 's 0. 52x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Matson, Inc.

(MATX) delivered a total return of +181. 0%, compared to +124. 8% for Danaos Corporation (DAC). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MATX returned +476. 1% versus DAC's +225. 9%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Danaos Corporation (DAC) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

62β versus Matson, Inc. 's 1. 76β — meaning MATX is approximately 182% more volatile than DAC relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Matson, Inc. (MATX) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 26% versus 30% for Danaos Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Danaos Corporation (DAC) is pulling ahead at 2.

8% versus -2. 3% for Matson, Inc. (MATX). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Danaos Corporation grew EPS 2. 7% year-over-year, compared to -0. 4% for Matson, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, DAC leads at 1. 6% 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.

Danaos Corporation (DAC) is the more profitable company, earning 47.

4% net margin versus 13. 3% for Matson, Inc. — meaning it keeps 47. 4% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: DAC leads at 47. 8% versus 14. 0% for MATX. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — DAC leads at 60. 1%, 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.

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, Danaos Corporation (DAC) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 11x versus Matson, Inc. 's 0. 52x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Danaos Corporation (DAC) trades at 5. 3x forward P/E versus 13. 4x for Matson, Inc. — 8. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for MATX: 5. 5% to $190. 00.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Danaos Corporation (DAC) offers the highest yield at 2. 6%, versus 0. 8% for Matson, Inc. (MATX).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Danaos Corporation (DAC) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.

62), 2. 6% yield, +225. 9% 10Y return). Matson, Inc. (MATX) carries a higher beta of 1. 76 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (DAC: +225. 9%, MATX: +476. 1%), 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.

Both stocks operate in the Industrials sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

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.