MMM Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

Harte-Hanks has a net margin of 18.74% compared to 3M's net margin of -0.94%. 3M's return on equity of 98.97% beat Harte-Hanks's return on equity of -145.7%.

3M has a consensus price target of $151.88, signalling upside risk potential of 6.72%. On the other hand Harte-Hanks has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could grow by 324.76%. Given that Harte-Hanks has higher upside potential than 3M, analysts believe Harte-Hanks is more attractive than 3M.

3M has a beta of 1.024, which suggesting that the stock is 2.368% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Harte-Hanks has a beta of -0.211, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 121.084%.

3M has a quarterly dividend of $0.73 per share corresponding to a yield of 2.01%. Harte-Hanks offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. 3M pays 47.5% of its earnings as a dividend. Harte-Hanks pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend. 3M's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

3M quarterly revenues are $6B, which are larger than Harte-Hanks quarterly revenues of $41.6M. 3M's net income of $1.1B is higher than Harte-Hanks's net income of -$392K. Notably, 3M's price-to-earnings ratio is 17.97x while Harte-Hanks's PE ratio is --. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for 3M is 3.20x versus 0.17x for Harte-Hanks. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Honeywell International has a net margin of 18.74% compared to 3M's net margin of 14.75%. 3M's return on equity of 98.97% beat Honeywell International's return on equity of 31.71%.

3M has a consensus price target of $151.88, signalling upside risk potential of 6.72%. On the other hand Honeywell International has an analysts' consensus of $240.18 which suggests that it could grow by 7.09%. Given that Honeywell International has higher upside potential than 3M, analysts believe Honeywell International is more attractive than 3M.

3M has a beta of 1.024, which suggesting that the stock is 2.368% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Honeywell International has a beta of 1.078, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 7.82%.

3M has a quarterly dividend of $0.73 per share corresponding to a yield of 2.01%. Honeywell International offers a yield of 1.99% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $1.13 per share. 3M pays 47.5% of its earnings as a dividend. Honeywell International pays out 50.87% of its earnings as a dividend. Both of these payout ratios are sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

3M quarterly revenues are $6B, which are smaller than Honeywell International quarterly revenues of $9.8B. 3M's net income of $1.1B is lower than Honeywell International's net income of $1.4B. Notably, 3M's price-to-earnings ratio is 17.97x while Honeywell International's PE ratio is 25.78x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for 3M is 3.20x versus 3.74x for Honeywell International. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Planet Green Holdings has a net margin of 18.74% compared to 3M's net margin of -70.61%. 3M's return on equity of 98.97% beat Planet Green Holdings's return on equity of -80.05%.

3M has a consensus price target of $151.88, signalling upside risk potential of 6.72%. On the other hand Planet Green Holdings has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could fall by --. Given that 3M has higher upside potential than Planet Green Holdings, analysts believe 3M is more attractive than Planet Green Holdings.

3M has a beta of 1.024, which suggesting that the stock is 2.368% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Planet Green Holdings has a beta of 0.897, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 10.313%.

3M has a quarterly dividend of $0.73 per share corresponding to a yield of 2.01%. Planet Green Holdings offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. 3M pays 47.5% of its earnings as a dividend. Planet Green Holdings pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend. 3M's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

3M quarterly revenues are $6B, which are larger than Planet Green Holdings quarterly revenues of $1.5M. 3M's net income of $1.1B is higher than Planet Green Holdings's net income of -$1.1M. Notably, 3M's price-to-earnings ratio is 17.97x while Planet Green Holdings's PE ratio is --. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for 3M is 3.20x versus 8.85x for Planet Green Holdings. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Seaboard has a net margin of 18.74% compared to 3M's net margin of 1.38%. 3M's return on equity of 98.97% beat Seaboard's return on equity of 2.09%.

3M has a consensus price target of $151.88, signalling upside risk potential of 6.72%. On the other hand Seaboard has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could fall by --. Given that 3M has higher upside potential than Seaboard, analysts believe 3M is more attractive than Seaboard.

3M has a beta of 1.024, which suggesting that the stock is 2.368% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Seaboard has a beta of 0.132, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 86.752%.

3M has a quarterly dividend of $0.73 per share corresponding to a yield of 2.01%. Seaboard offers a yield of 0.33% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $2.25 per share. 3M pays 47.5% of its earnings as a dividend. Seaboard pays out 10.23% of its earnings as a dividend. Both of these payout ratios are sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

3M quarterly revenues are $6B, which are larger than Seaboard quarterly revenues of $2.3B. 3M's net income of $1.1B is higher than Seaboard's net income of $32M. Notably, 3M's price-to-earnings ratio is 17.97x while Seaboard's PE ratio is 26.74x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for 3M is 3.20x versus 0.28x for Seaboard. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.