Carters vs Canada Goose
CRI and GOOS side by side, both in apparel and other finished products made from fabrics and similar materials. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CRI and GOOS compare
Canada Goose grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (13.3% versus 5.0% for Carters).
Carters keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 7.4% compared with 1.5% at Canada Goose.
Carters pays a dividend yielding 2.9%; Canada Goose does not pay one.
Carters scores higher on the StockData Score (21 against 5 for Canada Goose), 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 | CRI | GOOS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.3B | – |
| Share price | $34.29 | $8.46 |
| Change, 1 year | 3.3% | −36.9% |
| Change, 5 years | −67.9% | −83.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.93 | 1.32 |
| Employees | 15K | 1,000 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 21 (better) | 5 |
| Valuation score | 6 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 5.7× | – |
| P/S | 0.4× | – |
| P/B | 1.2× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 3.6× | – |
| P/FCF | 3.9× | – |
| FCF yield | 25.4% | – |
| Fair value | $79.70 | – |
| Margin of safety | 57.0% | – |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.0% | 13.3% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −0.85% | 11.1% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 147% (better) | −76.3% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 145% (better) | −76.3% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 0.24% (better) | −18.3% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 49.1% | 69.7% (better) |
| Operating margin | 10.4% (better) | 5.8% |
| Net margin | 7.4% (better) | 1.5% |
| FCF margin | 10.7% (better) | 9.8% |
| Return on equity | 22.9% (better) | 3.9% |
| Return on invested capital | 21.3% | 22.1% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.54 | 0.01 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.12 (better) | −1.83 |
| Interest coverage | 6.7× | – |
| Current ratio | 2.78 (better) | 2.63 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.93 | – |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.9% | – |
| Payout ratio | 16.6% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 20.9% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 2.9% | – |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 107% | 25.2% |
| Held by insiders | 3.6% | 71.5% |
| Short interest, % of float | 17.6% | – |
Go deeper
- CRI stock overview
- CRI income statement
- CRI valuation and score
- GOOS stock overview
- GOOS income statement
- GOOS valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.