Paper, Lumber & Forest Products
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
ITP vs SLVM vs CLW vs MERC vs SON vs KO
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Paper, Lumber & Forest Products
Paper, Lumber & Forest Products
Paper, Lumber & Forest Products
Packaging & Containers
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic
ITP vs SLVM vs CLW vs MERC vs SON vs KO — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Paper, Lumber & Forest Products | Paper, Lumber & Forest Products | Paper, Lumber & Forest Products | Paper, Lumber & Forest Products | Packaging & Containers | Beverages - Non-Alcoholic |
| Market Cap | $3M | $1.58B | $271M | $58M | $5.00B | $341.71B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $79M | $3.29B | $1.54B | $1.85B | $7.49B | $49.28B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-11M | $102M | $-27M | $-528M | $1.04B | $13.70B |
| Gross Margin | 5.7% | 19.8% | 5.1% | -3.7% | 20.9% | 61.7% |
| Operating Margin | -12.6% | 6.4% | -0.1% | -12.0% | 8.7% | 29.3% |
| Forward P/E | — | 17.2x | — | — | 8.7x | 24.3x |
| Total Debt | $10M | $853M | $422M | $1.61B | $4.85B | $45.49B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $6M | $135M | $31K | $187M | $378M | $10.27B |
ITP vs SLVM vs CLW vs MERC vs SON vs KO — 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% |
| Sylvamo Corporation (SLVM) | 100 | 121.4 | +21.4% |
| Clearwater Paper Co… (CLW) | 100 | 43.8 | -56.2% |
| Mercer Internationa… (MERC) | 100 | 7.4 | -92.6% |
| Sonoco Products Com… (SON) | 100 | 85.1 | -14.9% |
| The Coca-Cola Compa… (KO) | 100 | 151.3 | +51.3% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: ITP vs SLVM vs CLW vs MERC vs SON vs KO
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
ITP lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
SLVM is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night and defensive.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.73, Low D/E 88.3%, current ratio 1.50x
- Beta 0.73, yield 4.5%, current ratio 1.50x
CLW doesn't hold a clear category lead here; it's more of a secondary option in this specific comparison.
MERC ranks third and is worth considering specifically for dividends.
- 17.5% yield, vs KO's 2.6%, (2 stocks pay no dividend)
SON carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 36 yrs, beta 0.49, yield 4.1%
- Rev growth 41.7%, EPS growth 141.2%, 3Y rev CAGR 8.7%
- PEG 0.61 vs KO's 2.17
- 41.7% revenue growth vs ITP's -12.4%
KO is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if long-term compounding is your priority.
- 115.0% 10Y total return vs SLVM's 81.7%
- 27.8% margin vs MERC's -28.5%
- 13.1% ROA vs MERC's -24.3%, ROIC 15.8% vs -8.5%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 41.7% revenue growth vs ITP's -12.4% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (8.7x vs 24.3x), PEG 0.61 vs 2.17 | |
| Quality / Margins | 27.8% margin vs MERC's -28.5% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.49 vs MERC's 2.06, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 17.5% yield, vs KO's 2.6%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +21.5% vs MERC's -72.8% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 13.1% ROA vs MERC's -24.3%, ROIC 15.8% vs -8.5% |
ITP vs SLVM vs CLW vs MERC vs SON vs KO — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
ITP vs SLVM vs CLW vs MERC vs SON vs KO — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 6 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
KO leads in 4 of 6 categories
ITP leads 1 • SLVM leads 0 • CLW leads 0 • MERC leads 0 • SON leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
KO leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
KO is the larger business by revenue, generating $49.3B annually — 624.4x ITP's $79M. KO is the more profitable business, keeping 27.8% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to MERC's -28.5%. On growth, KO holds the edge at +12.1% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $79M | $3.3B | $1.5B | $1.9B | $7.5B | $49.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $5M | $389M | $69M | -$61M | $1.2B | $15.5B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$11M | $102M | -$27M | -$528M | $1.0B | $13.7B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $4M | $10M | -$54M | -$156M | $266M | $12.6B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +5.7% | +19.8% | +5.1% | -3.7% | +20.9% | +61.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -12.6% | +6.4% | -0.1% | -12.0% | +8.7% | +29.3% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -13.9% | +3.1% | -1.8% | -28.5% | +13.8% | +27.8% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +4.8% | +0.3% | -3.5% | -8.4% | +3.6% | +25.5% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +2.1% | -8.0% | -4.7% | -3.5% | -1.9% | +12.1% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +40.0% | -111.7% | -110.5% | -136.4% | +23.6% | +18.2% |
Valuation Metrics
ITP leads this category, winning 3 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), SON offers better value at 0.90x vs KO's 2.34x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $3M | $1.6B | $271M | $58M | $5.0B | $341.7B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $7M | $2.3B | $693M | $1.5B | $9.5B | $376.9B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.19x | 12.32x | -13.54x | -0.12x | 12.73x | 26.12x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 17.21x | — | — | 8.70x | 24.27x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — | 0.90x | 2.34x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 1.15x | 5.36x | 6.21x | — | 7.69x | 25.45x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.04x | 0.47x | 0.17x | 0.03x | 0.66x | 7.13x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.01x | 1.68x | 0.33x | 0.84x | 1.39x | 9.99x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 0.54x | 35.82x | — | — | 12.73x | 64.52x |
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 $-2 for MERC. ITP carries lower financial leverage with a 0.06x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to MERC's 23.64x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), CLW scores 7/9 vs MERC's 3/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -7.1% | +10.5% | -3.3% | -2.4% | +30.0% | +41.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -6.2% | +3.7% | -1.7% | -24.3% | +9.0% | +13.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -3.7% | +11.9% | +1.2% | -8.5% | +6.2% | +15.8% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -5.0% | +12.5% | +1.4% | -9.7% | +8.3% | +17.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.06x | 0.88x | 0.51x | 23.64x | 1.34x | 1.33x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $4M | $718M | $422M | $1.4B | $4.5B | $35.2B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $6M | $135M | $30,700 | $187M | $378M | $10.3B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $10M | $853M | $422M | $1.6B | $4.9B | $45.5B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -16.46x | 4.79x | -4.32x | -3.35x | 4.60x | 10.70x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
KO leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in SLVM five years ago would be worth $18,174 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $417 for ITP. Over the past 12 months, SON leads with a +21.5% total return vs MERC's -72.8%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors KO at 11.7% vs MERC's -44.1% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -20.8% | -15.1% | -5.1% | -56.2% | +16.6% | +16.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -3.3% | -17.4% | -37.2% | -72.8% | +21.5% | +17.7% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -58.7% | +3.1% | -45.5% | -82.5% | -3.6% | +39.3% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -95.8% | +81.7% | -41.5% | -82.9% | -6.5% | +65.3% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -98.2% | +81.7% | -73.2% | -46.9% | +43.1% | +115.0% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -25.5% | +1.0% | -18.3% | -44.1% | -1.2% | +11.7% |
Risk & Volatility
KO leads this category, winning 2 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 MERC's 2.06 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. KO currently trades 94.5% from its 52-week high vs MERC's 19.2% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.86x | 0.73x | 1.28x | 2.06x | 0.49x | -0.23x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $0.39 | $56.80 | $30.96 | $4.47 | $58.43 | $84.04 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.16 | $35.66 | $11.73 | $0.75 | $38.65 | $65.35 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +48.7% | +69.8% | +54.2% | +19.2% | +86.7% | +94.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 46.7 | 47.9 | 58.9 | 44.9 | 54.6 | 49.2 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.9M | 323K | 184K | 528K | 1.3M | 13.6M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — MERC and KO each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: SLVM as "Buy", CLW as "Buy", MERC as "Hold", SON as "Buy", KO as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 161.9% upside for MERC (target: $2) vs -7.7% for CLW (target: $16). For income investors, MERC offers the higher dividend yield at 17.46% vs KO's 2.56%.
| Metric | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Buy | Hold | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $50.00 | $15.50 | $2.25 | $59.00 | $86.13 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 2 | 10 | 9 | 21 | 48 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +4.5% | — | +17.5% | +4.1% | +2.6% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 4 | — | 0 | 36 | 56 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $1.78 | — | $0.15 | $2.09 | $2.04 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +5.2% | +6.4% | 0.0% | +0.2% | +0.2% |
KO leads in 4 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). ITP leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 1 tied.
ITP vs SLVM vs CLW vs MERC vs SON vs KO: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is ITP or SLVM or CLW or MERC or SON or KO 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 -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 Sylvamo Corporation (SLVM) a "Buy" — based on 2 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 SLVM or CLW or MERC or SON or KO?
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, Sonoco Products Company is actually cheaper at 8. 7x — 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: Sonoco Products Company wins at 0. 61x 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 SLVM or CLW or MERC or SON or KO?
Over the past 5 years, Sylvamo Corporation (SLVM) delivered a total return of +81.
7%, compared to -95. 8% for IT Tech Packaging, Inc. (ITP). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: KO returned +115. 0% 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 SLVM or CLW or MERC or SON or KO?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the lower-risk stock at -0.
23β versus Mercer International Inc. 's 2. 06β — meaning MERC is approximately -984% 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 24% for Mercer International Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — ITP or SLVM or CLW or MERC or SON or KO?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Sonoco Products Company (SON) is pulling ahead at 41.
7% versus -12. 4% for IT Tech Packaging, Inc. (ITP). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Sonoco Products Company grew EPS 141. 2% year-over-year, compared to -485. 8% for Mercer International Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, SON leads at 8. 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 SLVM or CLW or MERC or SON or KO?
The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the more profitable company, earning 27.
3% net margin versus -26. 7% for Mercer International 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 SLVM or CLW or MERC or SON or KO 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. 61x 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, Sonoco Products Company (SON) trades at 8. 7x forward P/E versus 24. 3x for The Coca-Cola Company — 15. 6x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for MERC: 161. 9% to $2. 25.
08Which pays a better dividend — ITP or SLVM or CLW or MERC or SON or KO?
In this comparison, MERC (17.
5% yield), SLVM (4. 5% yield), SON (4. 1% yield), KO (2. 6% yield) pay a dividend. ITP, CLW do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is ITP or SLVM or CLW or MERC or SON or KO 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). Mercer International Inc. (MERC) carries a higher beta of 2. 06 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (KO: +115. 0%, MERC: -46. 9%), 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 SLVM and CLW and MERC and SON and KO?
These companies operate in different sectors (ITP (Basic Materials) and SLVM (Basic Materials) and CLW (Basic Materials) and MERC (Basic Materials) and SON (Consumer Cyclical) and KO (Consumer Defensive)), 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; SLVM is a small-cap deep-value stock; CLW is a small-cap quality compounder stock; MERC is a small-cap income-oriented stock; SON is a small-cap high-growth stock; KO is a large-cap quality compounder stock. SLVM, MERC, SON, KO 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.