Herbalife vs Nu Skin Enterprises
HLF and NUS side by side, both in wholesale trade-non-durable goods. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How HLF and NUS compare
Herbalife is the larger company, worth 6.0 times as much as Nu Skin Enterprises ($1.4B against $226M).
Herbalife grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.5% versus −15.4% for Nu Skin Enterprises).
Herbalife keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 3.2% compared with −15.7% at Nu Skin Enterprises.
Nu Skin Enterprises pays a dividend yielding 5.2%; Herbalife does not pay one.
Nu Skin Enterprises scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 10 for Herbalife), 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 | HLF | NUS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.4B | $226M |
| Share price | $13.05 | $4.65 |
| Change, 1 year | 62.7% | −56.3% |
| Change, 5 years | −69.8% | −89.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.62 | 0.94 |
| Employees | 8,500 | 2,800 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 13 (better) |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 8.4× | – |
| P/S | 0.3× | 0.2× (better) |
| P/B | – | 0.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | 4.9× (better) | 6.3× |
| P/FCF | 4.2× (better) | 21.0× |
| FCF yield | 23.6% (better) | 4.8% |
| Fair value | $27.91 | $9.60 |
| Margin of safety | 53.2% (better) | 51.6% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.5% (better) | −15.4% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −1.9% (better) | −10.5% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −49.5% (better) | −315% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −51.1% (better) | −322% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −4.5% | −2.6% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 77.7% (better) | 69.2% |
| Operating margin | 9.5% (better) | −0.76% |
| Net margin | 3.2% (better) | −15.7% |
| FCF margin | 6.2% (better) | 0.78% |
| Return on equity | – | −32.5% |
| Return on invested capital | 32.6% (better) | −1.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.39 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.68 | 0.56 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 2.6× (better) | −0.7× |
| Current ratio | 1.20 | 1.98 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.45 | 3.71 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 5.2% |
| Buyback yield | 0.83% | 8.9% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 0.83% | 14.0% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 100% | 74.4% |
| Held by insiders | 3.2% | 5.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$2.4M | −$46.7K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 8.0% | 10.0% |
Go deeper
- HLF stock overview
- HLF income statement
- HLF valuation and score
- NUS stock overview
- NUS income statement
- NUS valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.