Hyatt Hotels vs Marriott International
H and MAR 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 MAR compare
Marriott International is the larger company, worth 6.1 times as much as Hyatt Hotels ($104B against $17.0B).
On earnings, Marriott International is cheaper: it trades at 41.4× trailing earnings, against 93.6× for Hyatt Hotels.
Marriott International grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (4.7% versus 2.8% for Hyatt Hotels).
Marriott International keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 9.6% compared with 2.6% at Hyatt Hotels.
Both pay dividends: Hyatt Hotels yields 0.33% and Marriott International 0.70%.
Marriott International 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 | MAR |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $17.0B | $104B |
| Share price | $180.57 | $399.30 |
| Change, 1 year | 25.7% | 51.8% |
| Change, 5 years | 97.3% | 138% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.09 | 0.99 |
| Employees | 242K | 148K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 4 | 10 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Health score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 93.6× | 41.4× (better) |
| P/S | 2.4× (better) | 3.9× |
| P/B | 5.3× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 23.4× (better) | 28.4× |
| P/FCF | 92.5× | 33.2× (better) |
| PEG | – | 4.35 |
| FCF yield | 1.1% | 3.0% (better) |
| Fair value | $64.22 | $198.69 |
| Margin of safety | −181% | −101% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 2.8% | 4.7% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 28.0% (better) | 19.9% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 4.9% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 8.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | – | 15.8% |
| Net margin | 2.6% | 9.6% (better) |
| FCF margin | 2.6% | 11.6% (better) |
| Return on equity | 5.6% | – |
| Return on invested capital | – | 26.4% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.39 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.33 | 3.87 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 5.0× |
| Current ratio | 0.63 (better) | 0.53 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.73 | 4.19 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.33% | 0.70% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 30.1% | 28.3% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | −5.6% | 40.6% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 2.4% | 3.4% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 2.7% | 4.1% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 50.9% | 62.2% |
| Held by insiders | 70.1% | 13.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$122M | −$66.4M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 20.4% | 3.0% |
Go deeper
- H stock overview
- H income statement
- H valuation and score
- MAR stock overview
- MAR income statement
- MAR valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.