Specialty Business Services
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
QUAD vs ACCO vs SON vs ESLT vs PKG
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Business Equipment & Supplies
Packaging & Containers
Aerospace & Defense
Packaging & Containers
QUAD vs ACCO vs SON vs ESLT vs PKG — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Specialty Business Services | Business Equipment & Supplies | Packaging & Containers | Aerospace & Defense | Packaging & Containers |
| Market Cap | $400M | $375M | $5.10B | $36.92B | $19.93B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $2.37B | $1.55B | $7.49B | $8.07B | $8.99B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $27M | $74M | $1.04B | $544M | $773M |
| Gross Margin | 18.5% | 30.7% | 20.9% | 24.4% | 21.0% |
| Operating Margin | 5.0% | 7.9% | 8.7% | 8.5% | 13.6% |
| Forward P/E | 6.3x | 4.8x | 8.8x | 57.3x | 21.7x |
| Total Debt | $444M | $921M | $4.85B | $965M | $4.36B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $63M | $64M | $378M | $635M | $529M |
QUAD vs ACCO vs SON vs ESLT vs PKG — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quad/Graphics, Inc. (QUAD) | 100 | 268.8 | +168.8% |
| ACCO Brands Corpora… (ACCO) | 100 | 65.6 | -34.4% |
| Sonoco Products Com… (SON) | 100 | 99.8 | -0.2% |
| Elbit Systems Ltd. (ESLT) | 100 | 564.2 | +464.2% |
| Packaging Corporati… (PKG) | 100 | 220.3 | +120.3% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: QUAD vs ACCO vs SON vs ESLT vs PKG
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
QUAD lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
ACCO is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if value and dividends is your priority.
- Lower P/E (4.8x vs 21.7x)
- 7.1% yield, vs SON's 4.0%
SON carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 30 yrs, beta 0.53, yield 4.0%
- Rev growth 41.7%, EPS growth 141.2%, 3Y rev CAGR 8.7%
- PEG 0.62 vs ESLT's 3.48
- Beta 0.53, yield 4.0%, current ratio 1.05x
ESLT ranks third and is worth considering specifically for long-term compounding and sleep-well-at-night.
- 7.4% 10Y total return vs PKG's 299.8%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.35, Low D/E 23.4%, current ratio 1.29x
- Beta 0.35 vs ACCO's 1.33, lower leverage
- +92.7% vs SON's +21.9%
Among these 5 stocks, PKG doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 41.7% revenue growth vs QUAD's -9.4% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (4.8x vs 21.7x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 13.8% margin vs QUAD's 1.2% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.35 vs ACCO's 1.33, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 7.1% yield, vs SON's 4.0% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +92.7% vs SON's +21.9% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 9.0% ROA vs QUAD's 2.2%, ROIC 6.2% vs 17.9% |
QUAD vs ACCO vs SON vs ESLT vs PKG — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
QUAD vs ACCO vs SON vs ESLT vs PKG — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
ACCO leads in 1 of 6 categories
ESLT leads 1 • QUAD leads 0 • SON leads 0 • PKG leads 0 • 4 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — ACCO and PKG each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
PKG is the larger business by revenue, generating $9.0B annually — 5.8x ACCO's $1.6B. SON is the more profitable business, keeping 13.8% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to QUAD's 1.2%. On growth, ESLT holds the edge at +11.8% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $2.4B | $1.6B | $7.5B | $8.1B | $9.0B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $196M | $177M | $1.2B | $857M | $1.9B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $27M | $74M | $1.0B | $544M | $773M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $44M | $49M | $266M | $564M | $729M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +18.5% | +30.7% | +20.9% | +24.4% | +21.0% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +5.0% | +7.9% | +8.7% | +8.5% | +13.6% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +1.2% | +4.8% | +13.8% | +6.7% | +8.6% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +1.9% | +3.2% | +3.6% | +7.0% | +8.1% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -7.7% | +8.3% | -1.9% | +11.8% | +10.1% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +18.2% | +2.4% | +23.6% | +79.5% | -53.9% |
Valuation Metrics
ACCO leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 9.2x trailing earnings, ACCO trades at a 86% valuation discount to ESLT's 64.5x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), SON offers better value at 0.92x vs ESLT's 3.92x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $400M | $375M | $5.1B | $36.9B | $19.9B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $781M | $1.2B | $9.6B | $37.2B | $23.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 14.19x | 9.23x | 12.99x | 64.47x | 26.04x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 6.30x | 4.83x | 8.84x | 57.26x | 21.68x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 0.92x | 3.92x | 2.15x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 3.96x | 6.80x | 7.77x | 39.55x | 12.46x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.17x | 0.25x | 0.68x | 4.30x | 2.22x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 2.97x | 0.57x | 1.42x | 9.03x | 4.35x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 7.90x | 7.37x | 12.99x | 61.70x | 27.36x |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — QUAD and ESLT each lead in 3 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
SON delivers a 30.0% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $30 in annual profit, vs $11 for ACCO. ESLT carries lower financial leverage with a 0.23x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to QUAD's 3.45x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), ESLT scores 8/9 vs PKG's 3/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +25.0% | +11.3% | +30.0% | +14.1% | +16.7% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +2.2% | +3.2% | +9.0% | +4.5% | +7.7% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +17.9% | +5.5% | +6.2% | +12.8% | +12.6% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +19.3% | +6.1% | +8.3% | +12.2% | +14.2% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 3 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 3.45x | 1.39x | 1.34x | 0.23x | 0.95x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $381M | $856M | $4.5B | $330M | $3.8B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $63M | $64M | $378M | $635M | $529M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $444M | $921M | $4.9B | $965M | $4.4B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 2.11x | 2.50x | 4.60x | 4.92x | 13.99x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
ESLT leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in ESLT five years ago would be worth $58,629 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $6,075 for ACCO. Over the past 12 months, ESLT leads with a +92.7% total return vs SON's +21.9%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors ESLT at 61.1% vs ACCO's -1.5% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +33.6% | +12.1% | +17.7% | +34.5% | +6.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +44.4% | +22.8% | +21.9% | +92.7% | +26.9% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +197.1% | -4.4% | -3.2% | +318.0% | +75.3% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +158.1% | -39.3% | -9.7% | +486.3% | +61.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -23.3% | -35.1% | +48.6% | +737.2% | +299.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +43.8% | -1.5% | -1.1% | +61.1% | +20.6% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — ACCO and ESLT each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
ESLT is the less volatile stock with a 0.35 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than ACCO's 1.33 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. ACCO currently trades 94.6% from its 52-week high vs ESLT's 78.2% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.03x | 1.33x | 0.53x | 0.35x | 0.76x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $8.64 | $4.29 | $58.43 | $1016.00 | $249.51 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $5.01 | $2.81 | $38.65 | $369.60 | $178.32 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +88.7% | +94.6% | +88.5% | +78.2% | +89.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 50.6 | 74.3 | 50.8 | 43.6 | 62.4 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 231K | 1.2M | 1.1M | 165K | 918K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — ACCO and SON each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: QUAD as "Buy", ACCO as "Hold", SON as "Buy", ESLT as "Hold", PKG as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 97.0% upside for ACCO (target: $8) vs -33.2% for ESLT (target: $531). For income investors, ACCO offers the higher dividend yield at 7.07% vs ESLT's 0.32%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Hold | Buy | Hold | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $8.00 | $8.00 | $59.00 | $531.00 | $245.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 7 | 7 | 21 | 6 | 26 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +3.8% | +7.1% | +4.0% | +0.3% | +2.2% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 2 | 0 | 30 | 1 | 1 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.29 | $0.29 | $2.09 | $2.58 | $5.02 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +2.0% | +4.0% | +0.2% | 0.0% | +0.8% |
ACCO leads in 1 of 6 categories (Valuation Metrics). ESLT leads in 1 (Total Returns). 4 tied.
QUAD vs ACCO vs SON vs ESLT vs PKG: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is QUAD or ACCO or SON or ESLT or PKG a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Sonoco Products Company (SON) is the stronger pick with 41.
7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -9. 4% for Quad/Graphics, Inc. (QUAD). ACCO Brands Corporation (ACCO) offers the better valuation at 9. 2x trailing P/E (4. 8x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Quad/Graphics, Inc. (QUAD) a "Buy" — based on 7 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 — QUAD or ACCO or SON or ESLT or PKG?
On trailing P/E, ACCO Brands Corporation (ACCO) is the cheapest at 9.
2x versus Elbit Systems Ltd. at 64. 5x. On forward P/E, ACCO Brands Corporation is actually cheaper at 4. 8x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Sonoco Products Company wins at 0. 62x versus Elbit Systems Ltd. 's 3. 48x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — QUAD or ACCO or SON or ESLT or PKG?
Over the past 5 years, Elbit Systems Ltd.
(ESLT) delivered a total return of +486. 3%, compared to -39. 3% for ACCO Brands Corporation (ACCO). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ESLT returned +737. 2% versus ACCO's -35. 1%. 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 — QUAD or ACCO or SON or ESLT or PKG?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Elbit Systems Ltd.
(ESLT) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 35β versus ACCO Brands Corporation's 1. 33β — meaning ACCO is approximately 280% more volatile than ESLT relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Elbit Systems Ltd. (ESLT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 23% versus 3% for Quad/Graphics, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — QUAD or ACCO or SON or ESLT or PKG?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Sonoco Products Company (SON) is pulling ahead at 41.
7% versus -9. 4% for Quad/Graphics, Inc. (QUAD). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Quad/Graphics, Inc. grew EPS 150. 5% year-over-year, compared to -3. 9% for Packaging Corporation of America. Over a 3-year CAGR, ESLT leads at 17. 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 — QUAD or ACCO or SON or ESLT or PKG?
Packaging Corporation of America (PKG) is the more profitable company, earning 8.
6% net margin versus 1. 1% for Quad/Graphics, Inc. — meaning it keeps 8. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: PKG leads at 14. 0% versus 4. 9% for QUAD. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — ACCO leads at 29. 8%, 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 QUAD or ACCO or SON or ESLT or PKG 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, Sonoco Products Company (SON) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 62x versus Elbit Systems Ltd. 's 3. 48x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, ACCO Brands Corporation (ACCO) trades at 4. 8x forward P/E versus 57. 3x for Elbit Systems Ltd. — 52. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for ACCO: 97. 0% to $8. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — QUAD or ACCO or SON or ESLT or PKG?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
ACCO Brands Corporation (ACCO) offers the highest yield at 7. 1%, versus 0. 3% for Elbit Systems Ltd. (ESLT).
09Is QUAD or ACCO or SON or ESLT or PKG better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Elbit Systems Ltd.
(ESLT) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 35), +737. 2% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (ESLT: +737. 2%, ACCO: -35. 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 QUAD and ACCO and SON and ESLT and PKG?
These companies operate in different sectors (QUAD (Industrials) and ACCO (Industrials) and SON (Consumer Cyclical) and ESLT (Industrials) and PKG (Consumer Cyclical)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: QUAD is a small-cap deep-value stock; ACCO is a small-cap deep-value stock; SON is a small-cap high-growth stock; ESLT is a mid-cap high-growth stock; PKG is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. QUAD, ACCO, SON, PKG pay a dividend while ESLT does 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.