1 800 Flowers Com vs Sally Beauty
FLWS and SBH side by side, both in miscellaneous retail. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How FLWS and SBH compare
Sally Beauty is the larger company, worth 11 times as much as 1 800 Flowers Com ($1.8B against $170M).
Sally Beauty grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (0.90% versus −10.8% for 1 800 Flowers Com).
Sally Beauty keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 5.4% compared with −9.3% at 1 800 Flowers Com.
Sally Beauty scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 3 for 1 800 Flowers Com), 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 | FLWS | SBH |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $170M | $1.8B |
| Share price | $2.65 | $19.22 |
| Change, 1 year | −19.5% | 36.2% |
| Change, 5 years | −92.2% | −6.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.49 | 1.10 |
| Employees | – | 27K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 3 | 14 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 9.5× |
| P/S | 0.1× (better) | 0.5× |
| P/B | 1.8× (better) | 2.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 5.7× |
| P/FCF | – | 8.6× |
| PEG | – | 1.55 |
| FCF yield | −3.7% | 11.7% (better) |
| Fair value | $4.04 | $25.48 |
| Margin of safety | 34.5% (better) | 24.6% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −10.8% | 0.90% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −6.7% | −0.74% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 2.1% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 6.9% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | −0.77% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 37.9% | 52.0% (better) |
| Operating margin | −8.4% | 8.7% (better) |
| Net margin | −9.3% | 5.4% (better) |
| FCF margin | −0.43% | 5.6% (better) |
| Return on equity | −87.7% | 23.8% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −23.6% | 16.0% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 2.88 | 0.89 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 1.47 |
| Interest coverage | −6.9× | – |
| Current ratio | 0.85 | 2.37 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.26 | 2.99 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 0.66% | 6.3% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 0.66% | 6.3% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 52.2% | 111% |
| Held by insiders | 39.0% | 1.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$7.6M | −$880K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 19.6% | 19.8% |
Go deeper
- FLWS stock overview
- FLWS income statement
- FLWS valuation and score
- SBH stock overview
- SBH income statement
- SBH valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.