Hilton Worldwide vs Marriott International
HLT 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 HLT and MAR compare
Marriott International is the larger company, worth 1.3 times as much as Hilton Worldwide ($104B against $80.3B).
On earnings, Marriott International is cheaper: it trades at 41.4× trailing earnings, against 52.3× for Hilton Worldwide.
Hilton Worldwide grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (8.7% versus 4.7% for Marriott International).
Hilton Worldwide keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 12.7% compared with 9.6% at Marriott International.
Both pay dividends: Hilton Worldwide yields 0.17% and Marriott International 0.70%.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | HLT | MAR |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $80.3B | $104B |
| Share price | $356.92 | $399.30 |
| Change, 1 year | 37.1% | 51.8% |
| Change, 5 years | 135% | 138% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.94 | 0.99 |
| Employees | 259K | 148K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 10 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 52.3× | 41.4× (better) |
| P/S | 6.4× | 3.9× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 29.8× | 28.4× (better) |
| P/FCF | 39.6× | 33.2× (better) |
| PEG | 4.96 | 4.35 (better) |
| FCF yield | 2.5% | 3.0% (better) |
| Fair value | $186.16 | $198.69 |
| Margin of safety | −91.7% (better) | −101% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 8.7% (better) | 4.7% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 22.8% (better) | 19.9% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −0.31% | 4.9% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 4.6% | 8.9% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 23.3% (better) | 15.8% |
| Net margin | 12.7% (better) | 9.6% |
| FCF margin | 16.3% (better) | 11.6% |
| Return on invested capital | 34.7% (better) | 26.4% |
| Financial health | ||
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.97 | 3.87 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 4.4× | 5.0× (better) |
| Current ratio | 0.65 (better) | 0.53 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.20 | 4.19 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.17% | 0.70% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 8.8% | 28.3% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 32.0% | 40.6% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 4.1% (better) | 3.4% |
| Shareholder yield | 4.3% (better) | 4.1% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 95.2% | 62.2% |
| Held by insiders | 1.5% | 13.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$38.7M (better) | −$66.4M |
| Superinvestors holding | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.5% | 3.0% |
Go deeper
- HLT stock overview
- HLT income statement
- HLT 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.