1 800 Flowers Com vs Ulta Beauty
FLWS and ULTA 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 ULTA compare
Ulta Beauty is the larger company, worth 148 times as much as 1 800 Flowers Com ($27.4B against $185M).
Ulta Beauty grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (11.2% versus −10.8% for 1 800 Flowers Com).
Ulta Beauty keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 9.3% compared with −9.0% at 1 800 Flowers Com.
Ulta Beauty scores higher on the StockData Score (11 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 | ULTA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $185M | $27.4B |
| Share price | $2.88 | $640.43 |
| Change, 1 year | −17.5% | 26.5% |
| Change, 5 years | −91.8% | 63.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.48 | 0.77 |
| Employees | – | 65K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 3 | 11 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 23.3× |
| P/S | 0.1× (better) | 2.1× |
| P/B | 1.3× (better) | 10.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 14.2× |
| P/FCF | – | 23.8× |
| PEG | – | 10.54 |
| FCF yield | −7.0% | 4.2% (better) |
| Fair value | $4.74 | $501.21 |
| Margin of safety | 39.2% (better) | −27.8% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −10.8% | 11.2% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −6.7% | 15.0% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 0.72% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 5.2% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 52.5% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 38.0% | 39.3% (better) |
| Operating margin | −8.5% | 12.5% (better) |
| Net margin | −9.0% | 9.3% (better) |
| FCF margin | −0.86% | 8.9% (better) |
| Return on equity | −65.4% | 46.1% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −31.1% | 45.2% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.95 | 0.13 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 0.07 |
| Interest coverage | −7.5× | – |
| Current ratio | 0.92 | 1.35 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.74 | 6.88 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 0.63% | 4.4% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 0.63% | 4.4% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 52.2% | 99.2% |
| Held by insiders | 38.8% | 0.26% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$7.6M | −$1.8M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 19.9% | 5.7% |
Go deeper
- FLWS stock overview
- FLWS income statement
- FLWS valuation and score
- ULTA stock overview
- ULTA income statement
- ULTA valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.