Apple Hospitality REIT vs Ryman Hospitality Properties
APLE and RHP side by side, both in miscellaneous investing. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How APLE and RHP compare
Ryman Hospitality Properties is the larger company, worth 1.9 times as much as Apple Hospitality REIT ($8.4B against $4.4B).
On earnings, Apple Hospitality REIT is cheaper: it trades at 25.0× trailing earnings, against 33.1× for Ryman Hospitality Properties.
Ryman Hospitality Properties grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (12.2% versus 1.2% for Apple Hospitality REIT).
Apple Hospitality REIT keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 12.2% compared with 9.9% at Ryman Hospitality Properties.
Both pay dividends: Apple Hospitality REIT yields 5.2% and Ryman Hospitality Properties 3.6%.
Apple Hospitality REIT scores higher on the StockData Score (11 against 7 for Ryman Hospitality Properties), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | APLE | RHP |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $4.4B | $8.4B |
| Share price | $18.52 | $133.18 |
| Change, 1 year | 61.7% | 53.7% |
| Change, 5 years | 11.1% | 39.9% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.81 | 0.89 |
| Employees | 64 | 1,819 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 11 (better) | 7 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 25.0× (better) | 33.1× |
| P/S | 3.0× (better) | 3.1× |
| P/B | 1.4× (better) | 11.2× |
| EV/EBITDA | 9.6× | 9.6× (better) |
| P/FCF | 15.1× | – |
| PEG | 4.54 | 1.90 (better) |
| FCF yield | 6.6% | – |
| Fair value | $16.97 | $112.08 |
| Margin of safety | −9.1% (better) | −18.8% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 1.2% | 12.2% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 18.6% | 37.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −3.1% | 3.6% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −1.3% (better) | −1.5% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 40.2% | 43.8% (better) |
| Operating margin | 17.9% | 19.8% (better) |
| Net margin | 12.2% (better) | 9.9% |
| FCF margin | 20.2% | – |
| Return on equity | 5.5% | 35.1% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 8.1% | 136% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | – |
| Interest coverage | – | 2.1× |
| Altman Z-score | 1.99 (better) | 1.75 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 5.2% (better) | 3.6% |
| Payout ratio | 129% | 110% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 27.5% | 37.4% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 0.35% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 5.5% (better) | 3.6% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 86.9% | 101% |
| Held by insiders | 7.1% | 3.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $165K | $1.6M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 8.7% | 5.5% |
Go deeper
- APLE stock overview
- APLE income statement
- APLE valuation and score
- RHP stock overview
- RHP income statement
- RHP valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.