Acushnet vs Peloton Interactive
GOLF and PTON side by side, both in dolls, toys, games and sporting and athletic. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How GOLF and PTON compare
Acushnet is the larger company, worth 1.9 times as much as Peloton Interactive ($4.8B against $2.5B).
On earnings, Peloton Interactive is cheaper: it trades at 19.0× trailing earnings, against 22.5× for Acushnet.
Acushnet grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.8% versus −0.05% for Peloton Interactive).
Acushnet keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 8.2% compared with 5.9% at Peloton Interactive.
Acushnet pays a dividend yielding 1.2%; Peloton Interactive does not pay one.
Acushnet scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 7 for Peloton Interactive), 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 | GOLF | PTON |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $4.8B | $2.5B |
| Share price | $82.94 | $5.70 |
| Change, 1 year | 1.8% | −23.6% |
| Change, 5 years | 46.9% | −87.9% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.83 | 2.21 |
| Employees | 7,300 | 1,736 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 (better) | 7 |
| Valuation score | 1 | 1 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 22.5× | 19.0× (better) |
| P/S | 1.8× | 1.0× (better) |
| P/B | 5.6× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 13.5× | 4.1× (better) |
| P/FCF | 20.3× | 5.5× (better) |
| PEG | 5.37 | – |
| FCF yield | 4.9% | 18.1% (better) |
| Fair value | $65.19 | $6.38 |
| Margin of safety | −27.2% | 10.7% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.8% (better) | −0.05% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 9.7% (better) | −9.5% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −0.81% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 0.82% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 19.4% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 49.4% | 54.8% (better) |
| Operating margin | 13.3% (better) | 9.6% |
| Net margin | 8.2% (better) | 5.9% |
| FCF margin | 8.8% | 18.5% (better) |
| Return on equity | 25.7% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 16.9% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.01 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.85 (better) | −4.63 |
| Interest coverage | – | 1.9× |
| Current ratio | 2.02 | 3.05 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.69 (better) | −0.71 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.2% | – |
| Payout ratio | 26.8% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 9 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 8.7% | – |
| Buyback yield | 2.2% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 3.4% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 55.1% | 92.3% |
| Held by insiders | 52.9% | 2.3% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$3.4M (better) | −$8.5M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 8.6% | 13.9% |
Go deeper
- GOLF stock overview
- GOLF income statement
- GOLF valuation and score
- PTON stock overview
- PTON income statement
- PTON valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.