Bausch & Lomb vs Warby Parker
BLCO and WRBY side by side, both in measuring, analyzing, and controlling instruments; photographic, medical and optical goods; watches and clocks. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BLCO and WRBY compare
Bausch & Lomb is the larger company, worth 2.2 times as much as Warby Parker ($7.5B against $3.4B).
Warby Parker grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (9.9% versus 8.9% for Bausch & Lomb).
Warby Parker keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 0.80% compared with −2.0% at Bausch & Lomb.
Warby Parker scores higher on the StockData Score (12 against 9 for Bausch & Lomb), 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 | BLCO | WRBY |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $7.5B | $3.4B |
| Share price | $21.09 | $27.44 |
| Change, 1 year | 27.0% | 56.9% |
| Change, 5 years | – | −50.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.76 | 1.90 |
| Employees | 13K | 4,036 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 12 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 3 | 3 |
| Performance score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 457× |
| P/S | 1.4× (better) | 3.6× |
| P/B | 1.2× (better) | 8.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | 15.4× (better) | 54.5× |
| P/FCF | 29.9× (better) | 159× |
| FCF yield | 3.3% (better) | 0.63% |
| Fair value | $28.66 | $9.23 |
| Margin of safety | 26.4% (better) | −197% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 8.9% | 9.9% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 8.4% | 17.2% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 942% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 500% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 54.7% |
| Operating margin | 7.1% (better) | 0.16% |
| Net margin | −2.0% | 0.80% (better) |
| FCF margin | 4.7% (better) | 2.3% |
| Return on equity | −1.7% | 1.9% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 2.8% (better) | 1.1% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.78 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 5.72 | – |
| Interest coverage | 1.0× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.56 | 2.26 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.08 | 5.54 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 10.7% | 101% |
| Held by insiders | 0.81% | 17.3% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$2.3M (better) | −$55.0M |
| Superinvestors holding | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | 0.73% | 19.6% |
Go deeper
- BLCO stock overview
- BLCO income statement
- BLCO valuation and score
- WRBY stock overview
- WRBY income statement
- WRBY valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.