Marine Shipping
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
MATX vs ZIM vs SBLK vs INSW vs ASC
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Marine Shipping
Marine Shipping
Oil & Gas Midstream
Marine Shipping
MATX vs ZIM vs SBLK vs INSW vs ASC — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Marine Shipping | Marine Shipping | Marine Shipping | Oil & Gas Midstream | Marine Shipping |
| Market Cap | $5.48B | $3.15B | $3.09B | $4.46B | $770M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $3.32B | $6.90B | $1.04B | $676M | $310M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $429M | $479M | $84M | $546M | $41M |
| Gross Margin | 18.4% | 16.8% | 33.0% | 40.6% | 28.8% |
| Operating Margin | 13.6% | 12.3% | 13.6% | 44.4% | 20.8% |
| Forward P/E | 13.4x | 6.6x | 8.0x | 8.5x | 6.5x |
| Total Debt | $727M | $5.74B | $1.07B | $576M | $129M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $142M | $1.05B | $500M | $117M | $47M |
MATX vs ZIM vs SBLK vs INSW vs ASC — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jan 21 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Matson, Inc. (MATX) | 100 | 301.0 | +201.0% |
| ZIM Integrated Ship… (ZIM) | 100 | 216.7 | +116.7% |
| Star Bulk Carriers … (SBLK) | 100 | 252.7 | +152.7% |
| International Seawa… (INSW) | 100 | 563.3 | +463.3% |
| Ardmore Shipping Co… (ASC) | 100 | 589.4 | +489.4% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: MATX vs ZIM vs SBLK vs INSW vs ASC
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
MATX is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure is your priority.
- Rev growth -2.3%, EPS growth -0.4%, 3Y rev CAGR -8.3%
- -2.3% revenue growth vs ASC's -23.6%
ZIM ranks third and is worth considering specifically for income & stability.
- Dividend streak 0 yrs, beta 1.33, yield 16.4%
- 16.4% yield, vs MATX's 0.8%
SBLK is the clearest fit if your priority is valuation efficiency.
- PEG 0.16 vs MATX's 0.52
- Lower P/E (8.0x vs 8.5x)
INSW carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for long-term compounding and defensive.
- 10.1% 10Y total return vs SBLK's 9.8%
- Beta 0.43, yield 3.2%, current ratio 3.71x
- 80.8% margin vs ZIM's 6.9%
- Beta 0.43 vs MATX's 1.76
ASC is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.48, Low D/E 20.3%, current ratio 4.33x
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | -2.3% revenue growth vs ASC's -23.6% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (8.0x vs 8.5x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 80.8% margin vs ZIM's 6.9% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.43 vs MATX's 1.76 | |
| Dividends | 16.4% yield, vs MATX's 0.8% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +160.2% vs SBLK's +83.1% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 20.1% ROA vs SBLK's 2.2%, ROIC 9.4% vs 3.2% |
MATX vs ZIM vs SBLK vs INSW vs ASC — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
MATX vs ZIM vs SBLK vs INSW vs ASC — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
INSW leads in 3 of 6 categories
ZIM leads 1 • MATX leads 0 • SBLK leads 0 • ASC leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
INSW leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ZIM is the larger business by revenue, generating $6.9B annually — 22.3x ASC's $310M. INSW is the more profitable business, keeping 80.8% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to ZIM's 6.9%. On growth, ASC holds the edge at +1.1% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $3.3B | $6.9B | $1.0B | $676M | $310M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $644M | $2.1B | $311M | $465M | $101M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $429M | $479M | $84M | $546M | $41M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $418M | $2.0B | $209M | $193M | -$41M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +18.4% | +16.8% | +33.0% | +40.6% | +28.8% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +13.6% | +12.3% | +13.6% | +44.4% | +20.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +12.9% | +6.9% | +8.1% | +80.8% | +13.2% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +12.6% | +29.0% | +20.0% | +28.5% | -13.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -3.1% | -31.5% | -2.7% | -91.3% | +1.1% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -15.1% | -93.1% | +58.3% | +4.8% | +91.7% |
Valuation Metrics
ZIM leads this category, winning 5 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 6.6x trailing earnings, ZIM trades at a 82% valuation discount to SBLK's 36.7x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), MATX offers better value at 0.51x vs SBLK's 0.75x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $5.5B | $3.1B | $3.1B | $4.5B | $770M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $6.1B | $7.8B | $3.7B | $4.9B | $852M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 12.98x | 6.56x | 36.73x | 14.48x | 21.43x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 13.40x | — | 8.00x | 8.52x | 6.51x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 0.51x | — | 0.75x | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 7.61x | 3.68x | 11.87x | 10.48x | 7.41x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.64x | 0.46x | 2.97x | 5.29x | 2.48x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 2.03x | 0.78x | 1.26x | 2.21x | 1.21x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 35.63x | 1.96x | 14.73x | 117.08x | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
INSW leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
INSW delivers a 27.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $27 in annual profit, vs $3 for SBLK. ASC carries lower financial leverage with a 0.20x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to ZIM's 1.43x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), INSW scores 6/9 vs ZIM's 4/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +15.9% | +12.0% | +3.4% | +27.1% | +6.4% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +9.3% | +4.3% | +2.2% | +20.1% | +5.5% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +10.8% | +7.3% | +3.2% | +9.4% | +9.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +11.3% | +9.6% | +4.0% | +12.1% | +11.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.26x | 1.43x | 0.44x | 0.29x | 0.20x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $585M | $4.7B | $572M | $459M | $82M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $142M | $1.1B | $500M | $117M | $47M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $727M | $5.7B | $1.1B | $576M | $129M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 127.63x | 2.02x | 2.08x | 0.90x | 7.70x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
INSW leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in INSW five years ago would be worth $53,809 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $17,911 for SBLK. Over the past 12 months, INSW leads with a +160.2% total return vs SBLK's +83.1%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors INSW at 40.9% vs ASC's 15.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +46.1% | +23.2% | +40.3% | +96.5% | +81.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +92.4% | +106.6% | +83.1% | +160.2% | +97.0% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +177.5% | +104.5% | +60.6% | +179.7% | +55.2% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +181.0% | +88.3% | +79.1% | +438.1% | +388.2% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +476.1% | +548.1% | +977.3% | +1014.5% | +155.3% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +40.5% | +26.9% | +17.1% | +40.9% | +15.8% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — SBLK and INSW each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
INSW is the less volatile stock with a 0.43 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than MATX's 1.76 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. SBLK currently trades 98.6% from its 52-week high vs ZIM's 87.1% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.76x | 1.33x | 0.73x | 0.43x | 0.48x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $189.28 | $29.97 | $27.20 | $91.58 | $19.61 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $86.97 | $12.33 | $14.79 | $35.60 | $9.18 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +95.1% | +87.1% | +98.6% | +98.5% | +96.2% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 64.1 | 61.3 | 72.8 | 67.3 | 74.8 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 274K | 1.8M | 1.4M | 597K | 677K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — MATX and ZIM each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: MATX as "Buy", ZIM as "Hold", SBLK as "Buy", INSW as "Buy", ASC as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 8.2% upside for SBLK (target: $29) vs -43.3% for ZIM (target: $15). For income investors, ZIM offers the higher dividend yield at 16.39% vs MATX's 0.80%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Hold | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $190.00 | $14.80 | $29.00 | $83.33 | $19.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 11 | 6 | 24 | 13 | 17 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +0.8% | +16.4% | +1.1% | +3.2% | +2.0% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $1.44 | $4.28 | $0.30 | $2.92 | $0.38 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +5.5% | 0.0% | +3.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
INSW leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). ZIM leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
MATX vs ZIM vs SBLK vs INSW vs ASC: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is MATX or ZIM or SBLK or INSW or ASC a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Matson, Inc.
(MATX) is the stronger pick with -2. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -23. 6% for Ardmore Shipping Corporation (ASC). ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Ltd. (ZIM) offers the better valuation at 6. 6x trailing P/E, 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.
02Which has the better valuation — MATX or ZIM or SBLK or INSW or ASC?
On trailing P/E, ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Ltd.
(ZIM) is the cheapest at 6. 6x versus Star Bulk Carriers Corp. at 36. 7x. On forward P/E, Ardmore Shipping Corporation is actually cheaper at 6. 5x — 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: Star Bulk Carriers Corp. wins at 0. 16x versus Matson, Inc. 's 0. 52x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — MATX or ZIM or SBLK or INSW or ASC?
Over the past 5 years, International Seaways, Inc.
(INSW) delivered a total return of +438. 1%, compared to +79. 1% for Star Bulk Carriers Corp. (SBLK). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: INSW returned +1015% versus ASC's +155. 3%. 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 — MATX or ZIM or SBLK or INSW or ASC?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), International Seaways, Inc.
(INSW) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 43β versus Matson, Inc. 's 1. 76β — meaning MATX is approximately 309% more volatile than INSW relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Ardmore Shipping Corporation (ASC) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 20% versus 143% for ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Ltd. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — MATX or ZIM or SBLK or INSW or ASC?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Matson, Inc.
(MATX) is pulling ahead at -2. 3% versus -23. 6% for Ardmore Shipping Corporation (ASC). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Matson, Inc. grew EPS -0. 4% year-over-year, compared to -77. 7% for ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Ltd.. Over a 3-year CAGR, INSW leads at -0. 8% 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 — MATX or ZIM or SBLK or INSW or ASC?
International Seaways, Inc.
(INSW) is the more profitable company, earning 36. 7% net margin versus 6. 9% for ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Ltd. — meaning it keeps 36. 7% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: INSW leads at 36. 3% versus 12. 2% for ZIM. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — INSW leads at 42. 3%, 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 MATX or ZIM or SBLK or INSW or ASC 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, Star Bulk Carriers Corp. (SBLK) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 16x versus Matson, Inc. 's 0. 52x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Ardmore Shipping Corporation (ASC) trades at 6. 5x forward P/E versus 13. 4x for Matson, Inc. — 6. 9x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for SBLK: 8. 2% to $29. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — MATX or ZIM or SBLK or INSW or ASC?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Ltd. (ZIM) offers the highest yield at 16. 4%, versus 0. 8% for Matson, Inc. (MATX).
09Is MATX or ZIM or SBLK or INSW or ASC better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, International Seaways, Inc.
(INSW) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 43), 3. 2% yield, +1015% 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 (INSW: +1015%, 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.
10What are the main differences between MATX and ZIM and SBLK and INSW and ASC?
These companies operate in different sectors (MATX (Industrials) and ZIM (Industrials) and SBLK (Industrials) and INSW (Energy) and ASC (Industrials)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: MATX is a small-cap deep-value stock; ZIM is a small-cap deep-value stock; SBLK is a small-cap quality compounder stock; INSW is a small-cap deep-value stock; ASC is a small-cap quality compounder stock. 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.