MMM Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

1847 Holdings LLC has a net margin of 21.8% compared to 3M's net margin of 59.12%. 3M's return on equity of 94.56% beat 1847 Holdings LLC's return on equity of --.

3M has a consensus price target of $146.46, signalling upside risk potential of 12.77%. On the other hand 1847 Holdings LLC has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could fall by --. Given that 3M has higher upside potential than 1847 Holdings LLC, analysts believe 3M is more attractive than 1847 Holdings LLC.

3M has a beta of 1.011, which suggesting that the stock is 1.099% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison 1847 Holdings LLC has a beta of 0.274, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 72.624%.

3M has a quarterly dividend of $0.70 per share corresponding to a yield of 2.78%. 1847 Holdings LLC offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. 3M pays -47.33% of its earnings as a dividend. 1847 Holdings LLC pays out -0.35% of its earnings as a dividend.

3M quarterly revenues are $6.3B, which are larger than 1847 Holdings LLC quarterly revenues of $4.8M. 3M's net income of $1.4B is higher than 1847 Holdings LLC's net income of $2.8M. Notably, 3M's price-to-earnings ratio is 16.40x while 1847 Holdings LLC'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 2.08x versus 0.00x for 1847 Holdings LLC. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Honeywell International has a net margin of 21.8% compared to 3M's net margin of 14.53%. 3M's return on equity of 94.56% beat Honeywell International's return on equity of 32.75%.

3M has a consensus price target of $146.46, signalling upside risk potential of 12.77%. On the other hand Honeywell International has an analysts' consensus of $246.81 which suggests that it could grow by 8.96%. Given that 3M has higher upside potential than Honeywell International, analysts believe 3M is more attractive than Honeywell International.

3M has a beta of 1.011, which suggesting that the stock is 1.099% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Honeywell International has a beta of 1.056, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 5.611%.

3M has a quarterly dividend of $0.70 per share corresponding to a yield of 2.78%. Honeywell International offers a yield of 1.93% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $1.13 per share. 3M pays -47.33% of its earnings as a dividend. Honeywell International pays out 50.46% of its earnings as a dividend. Honeywell International's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

3M quarterly revenues are $6.3B, which are smaller than Honeywell International quarterly revenues of $9.7B. 3M's net income of $1.4B is lower than Honeywell International's net income of $1.4B. Notably, 3M's price-to-earnings ratio is 16.40x while Honeywell International's PE ratio is 26.16x. 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 2.08x versus 3.93x for Honeywell International. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Planet Green Holdings has a net margin of 21.8% compared to 3M's net margin of -70.61%. 3M's return on equity of 94.56% beat Planet Green Holdings's return on equity of -80.05%.

3M has a consensus price target of $146.46, signalling upside risk potential of 12.77%. 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 1.011, which suggesting that the stock is 1.099% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Planet Green Holdings has a beta of -0.266, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 126.555%.

3M has a quarterly dividend of $0.70 per share corresponding to a yield of 2.78%. Planet Green Holdings offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. 3M pays -47.33% of its earnings as a dividend. Planet Green Holdings pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

3M quarterly revenues are $6.3B, which are larger than Planet Green Holdings quarterly revenues of $1.5M. 3M's net income of $1.4B is higher than Planet Green Holdings's net income of -$1.1M. Notably, 3M's price-to-earnings ratio is 16.40x 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 2.08x versus 9.75x for Planet Green Holdings. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Seaboard has a net margin of 21.8% compared to 3M's net margin of -6.72%. 3M's return on equity of 94.56% beat Seaboard's return on equity of -0.04%.

3M has a consensus price target of $146.46, signalling upside risk potential of 12.77%. 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 1.011, which suggesting that the stock is 1.099% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Seaboard has a beta of 0.363, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 63.721%.

3M has a quarterly dividend of $0.70 per share corresponding to a yield of 2.78%. Seaboard offers a yield of 0.37% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $2.25 per share. 3M pays -47.33% of its earnings as a dividend. Seaboard pays out 4.43% of its earnings as a dividend. Seaboard's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

3M quarterly revenues are $6.3B, which are larger than Seaboard quarterly revenues of $2.2B. 3M's net income of $1.4B is higher than Seaboard's net income of -$149M. Notably, 3M's price-to-earnings ratio is 16.40x while Seaboard's PE ratio is 12.12x. 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 2.08x versus 0.27x for Seaboard. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.