Central Garden & Pet vs Herbalife
CENT and HLF 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 CENT and HLF compare
Central Garden & Pet is the larger company, worth 2.1 times as much as Herbalife ($2.9B against $1.4B).
On earnings, Herbalife is cheaper: it trades at 8.4× trailing earnings, against 17.0× for Central Garden & Pet.
Herbalife grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.5% versus −1.2% for Central Garden & Pet).
Central Garden & Pet keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 5.4% compared with 3.2% at Herbalife.
Central Garden & Pet scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 10 for Herbalife), 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 | CENT | HLF |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $2.9B | $1.4B |
| Share price | $45.58 | $13.05 |
| Change, 1 year | 46.2% | 62.7% |
| Change, 5 years | −18.2% | −69.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.60 | 0.62 |
| Employees | 6,000 | 8,500 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 (better) | 10 |
| Valuation score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 17.0× | 8.4× (better) |
| P/S | 0.9× | 0.3× (better) |
| P/B | 1.6× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 9.2× | 4.9× (better) |
| P/FCF | 8.3× | 4.2× (better) |
| PEG | 3.85 | – |
| FCF yield | 12.1% | 23.6% (better) |
| Fair value | $57.44 | $27.91 |
| Margin of safety | 20.6% | 53.2% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −1.2% | 5.5% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 3.0% (better) | −1.9% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 20.1% (better) | −49.5% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 21.8% (better) | −51.1% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 7.7% (better) | −4.5% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 32.5% | 77.7% (better) |
| Operating margin | 8.1% | 9.5% (better) |
| Net margin | 5.4% (better) | 3.2% |
| FCF margin | 11.2% (better) | 6.2% |
| Return on equity | 10.0% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 9.5% | 32.6% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.68 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.59 (better) | 2.68 |
| Interest coverage | 4.4× (better) | 2.6× |
| Current ratio | 3.79 (better) | 1.20 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.80 (better) | 2.45 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 1.0% (better) | 0.83% |
| Shareholder yield | 1.0% (better) | 0.83% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 92.9% | 100% |
| Held by insiders | 5.1% | 3.2% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$1.3M (better) | −$2.4M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | – | 8.0% |
Go deeper
- CENT stock overview
- CENT income statement
- CENT valuation and score
- HLF stock overview
- HLF income statement
- HLF valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.