Ashland vs Nu Skin Enterprises
ASH and NUS side by side, both in wholesale trade-non-durable goods. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How ASH and NUS compare
Ashland is the larger company, worth 19 times as much as Nu Skin Enterprises ($3.5B against $189M).
Ashland grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (−1.4% versus −15.3% for Nu Skin Enterprises).
Both pay dividends: Ashland yields 2.2% and Nu Skin Enterprises 6.2%.
Nu Skin Enterprises scores higher on the StockData Score (12 against 6 for Ashland), 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 | ASH | NUS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.5B | $189M |
| Share price | $76.72 | $3.89 |
| Change, 1 year | 53.8% | −60.6% |
| Change, 5 years | −29.8% | −91.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.92 | 0.96 |
| Employees | 2,900 | 2,800 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 6 | 12 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 0 |
| Health score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/S | 1.9× | 0.1× (better) |
| P/B | 1.9× | 0.3× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 13.6× | 9.6× (better) |
| P/FCF | 14.1× | – |
| FCF yield | 7.1% (better) | −13.9% |
| Fair value | $61.27 | $13.01 |
| Margin of safety | −25.2% | 70.1% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −1.4% (better) | −15.3% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −2.0% (better) | −10.5% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | −314% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | −322% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | −2.6% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 31.5% | 67.8% (better) |
| Operating margin | 7.4% (better) | −2.0% |
| Net margin | – | −17.7% |
| FCF margin | 13.6% (better) | −2.0% |
| Return on equity | – | −34.8% |
| Return on invested capital | 2.8% (better) | −3.1% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.73 | 0.37 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.85 | 1.58 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | −1.8× |
| Current ratio | 3.05 (better) | 2.04 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.51 | 3.68 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | – | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.2% | 6.2% (better) |
| Years of dividend growth | 7 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 8.3% | – |
| Buyback yield | – | 7.9% |
| Shareholder yield | 2.2% | 14.1% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 114% | 74.4% |
| Held by insiders | 10.2% | 5.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | – | −$99.5K |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 12.3% | 9.7% |
Go deeper
- ASH stock overview
- ASH income statement
- ASH valuation and score
- NUS stock overview
- NUS income statement
- NUS valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.