MMM Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

Harte-Hanks has a net margin of 12.11% compared to 3M's net margin of -5.17%. 3M's return on equity of 93.24% beat Harte-Hanks's return on equity of -146.84%.

3M has a consensus price target of $149.24, signalling upside risk potential of 9.73%. On the other hand Harte-Hanks has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could grow by 275.54%. Given that Harte-Hanks has higher upside potential than 3M, analysts believe Harte-Hanks is more attractive than 3M.

3M has a beta of 1.004, which suggesting that the stock is 0.386% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Harte-Hanks has a beta of 0.098, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 90.167%.

3M has a quarterly dividend of $0.73 per share corresponding to a yield of 2.08%. 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 $47.1M. 3M's net income of $728M is higher than Harte-Hanks's net income of -$2.4M. Notably, 3M's price-to-earnings ratio is 18.01x 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 2.83x versus 0.18x for Harte-Hanks. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Honeywell International has a net margin of 12.11% compared to 3M's net margin of 12.74%. 3M's return on equity of 93.24% beat Honeywell International's return on equity of 32.36%.

3M has a consensus price target of $149.24, signalling upside risk potential of 9.73%. On the other hand Honeywell International has an analysts' consensus of $230.58 which suggests that it could grow by 15.15%. Given that Honeywell International has higher upside potential than 3M, analysts believe Honeywell International is more attractive than 3M.

3M has a beta of 1.004, which suggesting that the stock is 0.386% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Honeywell International has a beta of 1.010, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 1.033%.

3M has a quarterly dividend of $0.73 per share corresponding to a yield of 2.08%. Honeywell International offers a yield of 2.21% 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 $10.1B. 3M's net income of $728M is lower than Honeywell International's net income of $1.3B. Notably, 3M's price-to-earnings ratio is 18.01x while Honeywell International's PE ratio is 22.99x. 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 2.83x versus 3.41x for Honeywell International. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Planet Green Holdings has a net margin of 12.11% compared to 3M's net margin of -70.61%. 3M's return on equity of 93.24% beat Planet Green Holdings's return on equity of -80.05%.

3M has a consensus price target of $149.24, signalling upside risk potential of 9.73%. 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 1.004, which suggesting that the stock is 0.386% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Planet Green Holdings has a beta of 0.369, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 63.065%.

3M has a quarterly dividend of $0.73 per share corresponding to a yield of 2.08%. 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 $728M is higher than Planet Green Holdings's net income of -$1.1M. Notably, 3M's price-to-earnings ratio is 18.01x 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 2.83x versus 4.66x for Planet Green Holdings. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Seaboard has a net margin of 12.11% compared to 3M's net margin of 6.21%. 3M's return on equity of 93.24% beat Seaboard's return on equity of 1.89%.

3M has a consensus price target of $149.24, signalling upside risk potential of 9.73%. 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 1.004, which suggesting that the stock is 0.386% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Seaboard has a beta of 0.154, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 84.593%.

3M has a quarterly dividend of $0.73 per share corresponding to a yield of 2.08%. Seaboard offers a yield of 0.35% 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 $2.5B. 3M's net income of $728M is higher than Seaboard's net income of $154M. Notably, 3M's price-to-earnings ratio is 18.01x while Seaboard's PE ratio is 28.78x. 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 2.83x versus 0.28x for Seaboard. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.