Hyatt Hotels vs Hilton Worldwide
H and HLT side by side, both in hotels and motels. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How H and HLT compare
Hilton Worldwide is the larger company, worth 4.7 times as much as Hyatt Hotels ($80.3B against $17.0B).
On earnings, Hilton Worldwide is cheaper: it trades at 52.3× trailing earnings, against 93.6× for Hyatt Hotels.
Hilton Worldwide grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (8.7% versus 2.8% for Hyatt Hotels).
Hilton Worldwide keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 12.7% compared with 2.6% at Hyatt Hotels.
Both pay dividends: Hyatt Hotels yields 0.33% and Hilton Worldwide 0.17%.
Hilton Worldwide scores higher on the StockData Score (10 against 4 for Hyatt Hotels), 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 | H | HLT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $17.0B | $80.3B |
| Share price | $180.57 | $356.92 |
| Change, 1 year | 25.7% | 37.1% |
| Change, 5 years | 97.3% | 135% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.09 | 0.94 |
| Employees | 242K | 259K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 4 | 10 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 93.6× | 52.3× (better) |
| P/S | 2.4× (better) | 6.4× |
| P/B | 5.3× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 23.4× (better) | 29.8× |
| P/FCF | 92.5× | 39.6× (better) |
| PEG | – | 4.96 |
| FCF yield | 1.1% | 2.5% (better) |
| Fair value | $64.22 | $186.16 |
| Margin of safety | −181% | −91.7% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 2.8% | 8.7% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 28.0% (better) | 22.8% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | −0.31% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 4.6% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | – | 23.3% |
| Net margin | 2.6% | 12.7% (better) |
| FCF margin | 2.6% | 16.3% (better) |
| Return on equity | 5.6% | – |
| Return on invested capital | – | 34.7% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.39 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.33 | 3.97 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 4.4× |
| Current ratio | 0.63 | 0.65 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.73 | 3.20 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.33% (better) | 0.17% |
| Payout ratio | 30.1% | 8.8% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | −5.6% | 32.0% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 2.4% | 4.1% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 2.7% | 4.3% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 50.9% | 95.2% |
| Held by insiders | 70.1% | 1.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$122M | −$38.7M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 20.4% | 2.5% |
Go deeper
- H stock overview
- H income statement
- H valuation and score
- HLT stock overview
- HLT income statement
- HLT valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.