Cooper Companies vs Warby Parker
COO 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 COO and WRBY compare
Cooper Companies is the larger company, worth 3.5 times as much as Warby Parker ($11.9B against $3.4B).
On earnings, Cooper Companies is cheaper: it trades at 21.4× trailing earnings, against 457× for Warby Parker.
Warby Parker grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (9.9% versus 4.7% for Cooper Companies).
Cooper Companies keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 13.5% compared with 0.80% at Warby Parker.
Cooper Companies scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 12 for Warby Parker), 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 | COO | WRBY |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $11.9B | $3.4B |
| Share price | $62.65 | $27.44 |
| Change, 1 year | −13.6% | 56.9% |
| Change, 5 years | −38.1% | −50.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.94 | 1.90 |
| Employees | 500 | 4,036 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 (better) | 12 |
| Valuation score | 6 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 | 3 |
| Health score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 21.4× (better) | 457× |
| P/S | 2.8× (better) | 3.6× |
| P/B | 1.4× (better) | 8.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | 15.4× (better) | 54.5× |
| P/FCF | 17.6× (better) | 159× |
| FCF yield | 5.7% (better) | 0.63% |
| Fair value | $98.73 | $9.23 |
| Margin of safety | 36.5% (better) | −197% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 4.7% | 9.9% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 11.0% | 17.2% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 39.8% | 942% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 43.6% | 500% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 9.2% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 65.9% (better) | 54.7% |
| Operating margin | 12.8% (better) | 0.16% |
| Net margin | 13.5% (better) | 0.80% |
| FCF margin | 16.0% (better) | 2.3% |
| Return on equity | 6.8% (better) | 1.9% |
| Return on invested capital | 5.1% (better) | 1.1% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.31 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.57 | – |
| Interest coverage | 6.1× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.22 | 2.26 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.06 | 5.54 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 5.4% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 5.4% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 110% | 101% |
| Held by insiders | 0.65% | 17.3% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $3.2M (better) | −$55.0M |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.4% | 19.6% |
Go deeper
- COO stock overview
- COO income statement
- COO 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.