Designer Brands vs Shoe Station
DBI and SHOE side by side, both in apparel and accessory stores. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How DBI and SHOE compare
Shoe Station is the larger company, worth 1.2 times as much as Designer Brands ($399M against $345M).
On earnings, Shoe Station is cheaper: it trades at 16.7× trailing earnings, against 27.0× for Designer Brands.
Designer Brands grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (−0.84% versus −4.1% for Shoe Station).
Shoe Station keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 2.2% compared with 0.59% at Designer Brands.
Both pay dividends: Designer Brands yields 3.0% and Shoe Station 4.5%.
Shoe Station scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 10 for Designer Brands), 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 | DBI | SHOE |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $345M | $399M |
| Share price | $6.74 | $14.66 |
| Change, 1 year | 83.2% | −21.2% |
| Change, 5 years | −54.9% | −63.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.40 | 1.05 |
| Employees | 13K | 5,000 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 16 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 | 4 |
| Growth score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 27.0× | 16.7× (better) |
| P/S | 0.1× (better) | 0.4× |
| P/B | – | 0.6× |
| EV/EBITDA | 1.9× (better) | 4.0× |
| P/FCF | 2.9× (better) | 6.0× |
| FCF yield | 34.8% (better) | 16.7% |
| Fair value | $10.76 | $18.76 |
| Margin of safety | 37.4% (better) | 21.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −0.84% (better) | −4.1% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 5.3% (better) | 3.1% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | −61.1% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | −61.2% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 27.7% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 45.7% (better) | 34.5% |
| Operating margin | 3.5% (better) | 2.8% |
| Net margin | 0.59% | 2.2% (better) |
| FCF margin | 4.1% | 6.0% (better) |
| Return on equity | – | 3.6% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 3.9% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.28 | – |
| Interest coverage | – | 79.2× |
| Current ratio | 1.22 | 4.04 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.86 | 2.94 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 3.0% | 4.5% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 57.9% | 73.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 14.9% | – |
| Buyback yield | – | −0.04% |
| Shareholder yield | 3.0% | 4.5% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 70.3% | 73.0% |
| Held by insiders | 48.4% | 35.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$1.8M | $500K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 21.2% | 53.9% |
Go deeper
- DBI stock overview
- DBI income statement
- DBI valuation and score
- SHOE stock overview
- SHOE income statement
- SHOE valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.