Build-A-Bear Workshop vs Envela
BBW and ELA side by side, both in miscellaneous retail. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BBW and ELA compare
Build-A-Bear Workshop is the larger company, worth 1.3 times as much as Envela ($353M against $274M).
On earnings, Build-A-Bear Workshop is cheaper: it trades at 7.1× trailing earnings, against 12.3× for Envela.
Envela grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (47.7% versus −0.91% for Build-A-Bear Workshop).
Build-A-Bear Workshop keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 10.0% compared with 7.6% at Envela.
Build-A-Bear Workshop pays a dividend yielding 3.2%; Envela does not pay one.
Envela scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 18 for Build-A-Bear Workshop), 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 | BBW | ELA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $353M | $274M |
| Share price | $28.69 | $10.55 |
| Change, 1 year | −41.1% | −6.1% |
| Change, 5 years | 58.2% | 150% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.86 | 0.65 |
| Employees | 5,500 | 288 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 18 | 19 (better) |
| Valuation score | 5 | 5 |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 7.1× (better) | 12.3× |
| P/S | 0.7× (better) | 0.9× |
| P/B | 2.2× (better) | 3.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | 4.1× (better) | 8.0× |
| P/FCF | 14.4× | 11.4× (better) |
| PEG | 0.87 | – |
| FCF yield | 6.9% | 8.8% (better) |
| Fair value | $50.42 | $14.89 |
| Margin of safety | 43.1% (better) | 29.2% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −0.91% | 47.7% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 15.7% | 16.2% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −12.9% | 162% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −9.6% | 161% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 18.5% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 56.7% (better) | 21.7% |
| Operating margin | – | 9.6% |
| Net margin | 10.0% (better) | 7.6% |
| FCF margin | 4.7% | 8.2% (better) |
| Return on equity | 32.8% (better) | 32.4% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 46.5% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.12 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | −1.13 |
| Interest coverage | – | 79.8× |
| Current ratio | 1.60 | 4.24 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.39 | 10.69 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 3.2% | – |
| Payout ratio | 22.2% | – |
| Buyback yield | 10.6% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 13.8% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 104% | 19.3% |
| Held by insiders | 4.7% | 0.01% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$376K | $2.8K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 23.1% | 2.0% |
Go deeper
- BBW stock overview
- BBW income statement
- BBW valuation and score
- ELA stock overview
- ELA income statement
- ELA valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.