Bath & Body Works vs 1 800 Flowers Com
BBWI and FLWS side by side, both in miscellaneous retail. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BBWI and FLWS compare
Bath & Body Works is the larger company, worth 26 times as much as 1 800 Flowers Com ($4.4B against $170M).
Bath & Body Works grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (−2.2% versus −10.8% for 1 800 Flowers Com).
Bath & Body Works keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 10.8% compared with −9.3% at 1 800 Flowers Com.
Bath & Body Works pays a dividend yielding 3.7%; 1 800 Flowers Com does not pay one.
Bath & Body Works scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 3 for 1 800 Flowers Com), 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 | BBWI | FLWS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $4.4B | $170M |
| Share price | $21.65 | $2.65 |
| Change, 1 year | −5.5% | −19.5% |
| Change, 5 years | −71.7% | −92.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.25 | 1.49 |
| Employees | 61K | – |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 5.6× | – |
| P/S | 0.6× | 0.1× (better) |
| P/B | – | 1.8× |
| EV/EBITDA | 6.0× | – |
| P/FCF | 4.2× | – |
| FCF yield | 23.6% (better) | −3.7% |
| Fair value | $44.68 | $4.04 |
| Margin of safety | 51.5% (better) | 34.5% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −2.2% (better) | −10.8% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 2.5% (better) | −6.7% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 7.3% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 13.3% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 0.72% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 44.1% (better) | 37.9% |
| Operating margin | 16.7% (better) | −8.4% |
| Net margin | 10.8% (better) | −9.3% |
| FCF margin | 14.3% (better) | −0.43% |
| Return on equity | – | −87.7% |
| Return on invested capital | 51.9% (better) | −23.6% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 2.88 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.34 | – |
| Interest coverage | 4.5× (better) | −6.9× |
| Current ratio | 1.20 (better) | 0.85 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.34 (better) | 1.26 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 3.7% | – |
| Payout ratio | 20.7% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 21.7% | – |
| Buyback yield | 3.4% (better) | 0.66% |
| Shareholder yield | 7.1% (better) | 0.66% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 103% | 52.2% |
| Held by insiders | 0.91% | 39.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$14 (better) | −$7.6M |
| Short interest, % of float | 7.7% | 19.6% |
Go deeper
- BBWI stock overview
- BBWI income statement
- BBWI valuation and score
- FLWS stock overview
- FLWS income statement
- FLWS valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.