Paper, Lumber & Forest Products
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
ITP vs CLW vs KO vs JPM vs SLVM
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Paper, Lumber & Forest Products
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic
Banks - Diversified
Paper, Lumber & Forest Products
ITP vs CLW vs KO vs JPM vs SLVM — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Paper, Lumber & Forest Products | Paper, Lumber & Forest Products | Beverages - Non-Alcoholic | Banks - Diversified | Paper, Lumber & Forest Products |
| Market Cap | $3M | $271M | $341.71B | $908.57B | $1.58B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $79M | $1.54B | $49.28B | $280.33B | $3.29B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-11M | $-27M | $13.70B | $57.05B | $102M |
| Gross Margin | 5.7% | 5.1% | 61.7% | 60.0% | 19.8% |
| Operating Margin | -12.6% | -0.1% | 29.3% | 25.9% | 6.4% |
| Forward P/E | — | — | 24.3x | 14.6x | 17.2x |
| Total Debt | $10M | $422M | $45.49B | $942.38B | $853M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $6M | $31K | $10.27B | $343.34B | $135M |
ITP vs CLW vs KO vs JPM vs SLVM — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Sep 21 | Jun 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| IT Tech Packaging, … (ITP) | 100 | 4.9 | -95.1% |
| Clearwater Paper Co… (CLW) | 100 | 43.8 | -56.2% |
| The Coca-Cola Compa… (KO) | 100 | 151.3 | +51.3% |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) | 100 | 198.7 | +98.7% |
| Sylvamo Corporation (SLVM) | 100 | 121.4 | +21.4% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: ITP vs CLW vs KO vs JPM vs SLVM
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
Among these 5 stocks, ITP doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
CLW is the clearest fit if your priority is growth.
- 12.4% revenue growth vs ITP's -12.4%
KO has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in growth exposure.
- Rev growth 1.9%, EPS growth 23.6%, 3Y rev CAGR 3.7%
- 27.8% margin vs ITP's -13.9%
- 13.1% ROA vs ITP's -6.2%, ROIC 15.8% vs -3.7%
JPM is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if long-term compounding and valuation efficiency is your priority.
- 481.2% 10Y total return vs KO's 115.0%
- PEG 0.83 vs KO's 2.17
- Lower P/E (14.6x vs 17.2x)
- +20.9% vs CLW's -37.2%
SLVM ranks third and is worth considering specifically for income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 4 yrs, beta 0.73, yield 4.5%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.73, Low D/E 88.3%, current ratio 1.50x
- Beta 0.73, yield 4.5%, current ratio 1.50x
- Beta 0.73 vs CLW's 1.28
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 12.4% revenue growth vs ITP's -12.4% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (14.6x vs 17.2x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 27.8% margin vs ITP's -13.9% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.73 vs CLW's 1.28 | |
| Dividends | 4.5% yield, 4-year raise streak, vs KO's 2.6%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +20.9% vs CLW's -37.2% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 13.1% ROA vs ITP's -6.2%, ROIC 15.8% vs -3.7% |
ITP vs CLW vs KO vs JPM vs SLVM — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
ITP vs CLW vs KO vs JPM vs SLVM — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
KO leads in 2 of 6 categories
ITP leads 1 • JPM leads 1 • CLW leads 0 • SLVM leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
KO leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
JPM is the larger business by revenue, generating $280.3B annually — 3551.4x ITP's $79M. KO is the more profitable business, keeping 27.8% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to ITP's -13.9%. On growth, KO holds the edge at +12.1% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $79M | $1.5B | $49.3B | $280.3B | $3.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $5M | $69M | $15.5B | $81.4B | $389M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$11M | -$27M | $13.7B | $57.0B | $102M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $4M | -$54M | $12.6B | $100.9B | $10M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +5.7% | +5.1% | +61.7% | +60.0% | +19.8% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -12.6% | -0.1% | +29.3% | +25.9% | +6.4% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -13.9% | -1.8% | +27.8% | +20.4% | +3.1% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +4.8% | -3.5% | +25.5% | +36.0% | +0.3% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +2.1% | -4.7% | +12.1% | — | -8.0% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +40.0% | -110.5% | +18.2% | +16.0% | -111.7% |
Valuation Metrics
ITP leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 12.3x trailing earnings, SLVM trades at a 53% valuation discount to KO's 26.1x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), JPM offers better value at 0.92x vs KO's 2.34x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $3M | $271M | $341.7B | $908.6B | $1.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $7M | $693M | $376.9B | $1.51T | $2.3B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.19x | -13.54x | 26.12x | 16.22x | 12.32x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | 24.27x | 14.60x | 17.21x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 2.34x | 0.92x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 1.15x | 6.21x | 25.45x | 18.52x | 5.36x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.04x | 0.17x | 7.13x | 3.25x | 0.47x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.01x | 0.33x | 9.99x | 2.51x | 1.68x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 0.54x | — | 64.52x | 9.01x | 35.82x |
Profitability & Efficiency
KO leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
KO delivers a 41.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $41 in annual profit, vs $-7 for ITP. ITP carries lower financial leverage with a 0.06x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to JPM's 2.60x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), CLW scores 7/9 vs SLVM's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -7.1% | -3.3% | +41.1% | +15.9% | +10.5% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -6.2% | -1.7% | +13.1% | +1.3% | +3.7% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -3.7% | +1.2% | +15.8% | +4.5% | +11.9% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -5.0% | +1.4% | +17.3% | +8.9% | +12.5% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 5 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.06x | 0.51x | 1.33x | 2.60x | 0.88x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $4M | $422M | $35.2B | $599.0B | $718M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $6M | $30,700 | $10.3B | $343.3B | $135M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $10M | $422M | $45.5B | $942.4B | $853M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -16.46x | -4.32x | 10.70x | 0.74x | 4.79x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
JPM leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in JPM five years ago would be worth $23,548 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $417 for ITP. Over the past 12 months, JPM leads with a +20.9% total return vs CLW's -37.2%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors JPM at 33.7% vs ITP's -25.5% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -20.8% | -5.1% | +16.4% | +0.8% | -15.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -3.3% | -37.2% | +17.7% | +20.9% | -17.4% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -58.7% | -45.5% | +39.3% | +138.8% | +3.1% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -95.8% | -41.5% | +65.3% | +135.5% | +81.7% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -98.2% | -73.2% | +115.0% | +481.2% | +81.7% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -25.5% | -18.3% | +11.7% | +33.7% | +1.0% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — KO and JPM each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
KO is the less volatile stock with a -0.23 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than CLW's 1.28 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. JPM currently trades 96.2% from its 52-week high vs ITP's 48.7% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.86x | 1.28x | -0.23x | 0.87x | 0.73x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $0.39 | $30.96 | $84.04 | $338.09 | $56.80 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.16 | $11.73 | $65.35 | $269.72 | $35.66 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +48.7% | +54.2% | +94.5% | +96.2% | +69.8% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 46.7 | 58.9 | 49.2 | 72.1 | 47.9 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.9M | 184K | 13.6M | 7.4M | 323K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — KO and SLVM each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: CLW as "Buy", KO as "Buy", JPM as "Buy", SLVM as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 26.1% upside for SLVM (target: $50) vs -7.7% for CLW (target: $16). For income investors, SLVM offers the higher dividend yield at 4.49% vs JPM's 1.83%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $15.50 | $86.13 | $339.75 | $50.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 10 | 48 | 61 | 2 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | +2.6% | +1.8% | +4.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | — | 56 | 15 | 4 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | $2.04 | $5.95 | $1.78 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +6.4% | +0.2% | +3.8% | +5.2% |
KO leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). ITP leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
ITP vs CLW vs KO vs JPM vs SLVM: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is ITP or CLW or KO or JPM or SLVM 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. 4% for IT Tech Packaging, Inc. (ITP). Sylvamo Corporation (SLVM) offers the better valuation at 12. 3x trailing P/E (17. 2x 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 — ITP or CLW or KO or JPM or SLVM?
On trailing P/E, Sylvamo Corporation (SLVM) is the cheapest at 12.
3x versus The Coca-Cola Company at 26. 1x. On forward P/E, JPMorgan Chase & Co. is actually cheaper at 14. 6x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: JPMorgan Chase & Co. wins at 0. 83x versus The Coca-Cola Company's 2. 17x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — ITP or CLW or KO or JPM or SLVM?
Over the past 5 years, JPMorgan Chase & Co.
(JPM) delivered a total return of +135. 5%, compared to -95. 8% for IT Tech Packaging, Inc. (ITP). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: JPM returned +481. 2% versus ITP's -98. 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 — ITP or CLW or KO or JPM or SLVM?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the lower-risk stock at -0.
23β versus Clearwater Paper Corporation's 1. 28β — meaning CLW is approximately -648% more volatile than KO relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, IT Tech Packaging, Inc. (ITP) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 6% versus 3% for JPMorgan Chase & Co. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — ITP or CLW or KO or JPM or SLVM?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Clearwater Paper Corporation (CLW) is pulling ahead at 12.
4% versus -12. 4% for IT Tech Packaging, Inc. (ITP). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: The Coca-Cola Company grew EPS 23. 6% year-over-year, compared to -110. 6% for Clearwater Paper Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, KO leads at 3. 7% 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 — ITP or CLW or KO or JPM or SLVM?
The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the more profitable company, earning 27.
3% net margin versus -13. 0% for IT Tech Packaging, Inc. — meaning it keeps 27. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: KO leads at 28. 7% versus -10. 8% for ITP. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — KO leads at 61. 6%, 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 ITP or CLW or KO or JPM or SLVM 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, JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 83x versus The Coca-Cola Company's 2. 17x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) trades at 14. 6x forward P/E versus 24. 3x for The Coca-Cola Company — 9. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for SLVM: 26. 1% to $50. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — ITP or CLW or KO or JPM or SLVM?
In this comparison, SLVM (4.
5% yield), KO (2. 6% yield), JPM (1. 8% yield) pay a dividend. ITP, CLW do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is ITP or CLW or KO or JPM or SLVM better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0.
23), 2. 6% yield, +115. 0% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (KO: +115. 0%, CLW: -73. 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 ITP and CLW and KO and JPM and SLVM?
These companies operate in different sectors (ITP (Basic Materials) and CLW (Basic Materials) and KO (Consumer Defensive) and JPM (Financial Services) and SLVM (Basic Materials)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: ITP is a small-cap quality compounder stock; CLW is a small-cap quality compounder stock; KO is a large-cap quality compounder stock; JPM is a large-cap deep-value stock; SLVM is a small-cap deep-value stock. KO, JPM, SLVM pay a dividend while ITP, CLW 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.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.