Arhaus vs Haverty Furniture Companies
ARHS and HVT side by side, both in consumer discretionary. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How ARHS and HVT compare
Arhaus is the larger company, worth 3.9 times as much as Haverty Furniture Companies ($1.8B against $457M).
Haverty Furniture Companies grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (8.0% versus 5.4% for Arhaus).
Arhaus keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 4.9% compared with 2.9% at Haverty Furniture Companies.
Both pay dividends: Arhaus yields 2.8% and Haverty Furniture Companies 4.5%.
Haverty Furniture Companies scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 15 for Arhaus), 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 | ARHS | HVT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.8B | $457M |
| Share price | $12.45 | $29.28 |
| Change, 1 year | 22.4% | 44.8% |
| Change, 5 years | 2.0% | −9.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.97 | 0.92 |
| Employees | 2,800 | 12 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 | 16 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 | 3 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 24.9× | – |
| P/S | 1.3× | 0.6× (better) |
| P/B | 4.3× | 1.6× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 10.8× | 6.4× (better) |
| P/FCF | 43.2× | 11.6× (better) |
| FCF yield | 2.3% | 8.7% (better) |
| Fair value | $9.52 | $45.61 |
| Margin of safety | −30.8% | 35.8% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.4% | 8.0% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 22.1% (better) | 0.29% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −2.8% | 16.5% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 0.00% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 74.1% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 39.7% | 60.9% (better) |
| Operating margin | 6.6% | – |
| Net margin | 4.9% (better) | 2.9% |
| FCF margin | 2.9% | 5.1% (better) |
| Return on equity | 17.3% (better) | 7.6% |
| Return on invested capital | 39.5% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Current ratio | 1.33 | 1.69 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.53 | 3.01 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.8% | 4.5% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 71.8% | 92.5% |
| Buyback yield | – | 4.2% |
| Shareholder yield | 2.8% | 8.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 37.9% | 81.6% |
| Held by insiders | 1.7% | 7.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$29.6K (better) | −$937K |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.3% | – |
Go deeper
- ARHS stock overview
- ARHS income statement
- ARHS valuation and score
- HVT stock overview
- HVT income statement
- HVT valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.