Cosmos Health vs Nu Skin Enterprises
COSM and NUS 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 COSM and NUS compare
Nu Skin Enterprises is the larger company, worth 8.1 times as much as Cosmos Health ($195M against $24.2M).
Cosmos Health grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (33.8% versus −15.3% for Nu Skin Enterprises).
Nu Skin Enterprises keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of −17.7% compared with −33.1% at Cosmos Health.
Nu Skin Enterprises pays a dividend yielding 6.0%; Cosmos Health does not pay one.
Nu Skin Enterprises scores higher on the StockData Score (12 against 5 for Cosmos Health), 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 | COSM | NUS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $24.2M | $195M |
| Share price | $0.240 | $4.01 |
| Change, 1 year | −67.1% | −58.1% |
| Change, 5 years | −93.5% | −91.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | – | 0.96 |
| Employees | 163 | 2,800 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 5 | 12 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 0 | 0 |
| Health score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/S | 0.3× | 0.1× (better) |
| P/B | 1.2× | 0.4× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 9.9× |
| FCF yield | −41.1% | −13.5% (better) |
| Fair value | $0.209 | $12.88 |
| Margin of safety | −14.8% | 68.9% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 33.8% (better) | −15.3% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 3.3% (better) | −10.5% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | −314% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | −322% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | −2.6% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 10.3% | 67.8% (better) |
| Operating margin | −24.9% | −2.0% (better) |
| Net margin | −33.1% | −17.7% (better) |
| FCF margin | −13.5% | −2.0% (better) |
| Return on equity | −104% | −34.8% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −60.9% | −3.1% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.06 (better) | 0.37 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 1.58 |
| Interest coverage | −7.8× | −1.8× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.05 | 2.04 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | −2.63 | 3.68 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 6.0% |
| Buyback yield | −34.6% | 7.7% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | −34.6% | 13.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 2.1% | 74.4% |
| Held by insiders | 17.4% | 5.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $1.6M (better) | −$99.5K |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.1% | 9.7% |
Go deeper
- COSM stock overview
- COSM income statement
- COSM valuation and score
- NUS stock overview
- NUS income statement
- NUS valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.