Hilton Worldwide vs Travel & Leisure
HLT and TNL 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 TNL compare
Hilton Worldwide is the larger company, worth 18 times as much as Travel & Leisure ($83.0B against $4.7B).
On earnings, Travel & Leisure is cheaper: it trades at 20.9× trailing earnings, against 50.3× for Hilton Worldwide.
Hilton Worldwide grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (8.1% versus 4.6% for Travel & Leisure).
Hilton Worldwide keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 13.4% compared with 5.7% at Travel & Leisure.
Both pay dividends: Hilton Worldwide yields 0.16% and Travel & Leisure 3.0%.
Hilton Worldwide scores higher on the StockData Score (10 against 6 for Travel & Leisure), 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 | HLT | TNL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $83.0B | $4.7B |
| Share price | $373.09 | $78.65 |
| Change, 1 year | 35.8% | 21.6% |
| Change, 5 years | 158% | 42.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.92 | 1.18 |
| Employees | 259K | 45 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 (better) | 6 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 50.3× | 20.9× (better) |
| P/S | 6.5× | 1.1× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 29.5× | 6.6× (better) |
| P/FCF | 43.0× | 11.4× (better) |
| PEG | 4.77 | – |
| FCF yield | 2.3% | 8.8% (better) |
| Fair value | $209.75 | $70.50 |
| Margin of safety | −77.9% | −11.6% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 8.1% (better) | 4.6% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 22.8% (better) | 13.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 2.1% (better) | −42.8% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 7.1% (better) | −38.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 92.7% |
| Operating margin | 24.0% (better) | 13.0% |
| Net margin | 13.4% (better) | 5.7% |
| FCF margin | 15.2% (better) | 10.0% |
| Return on invested capital | 38.1% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.88 | – |
| Interest coverage | 4.4× (better) | 2.4× |
| Current ratio | 0.59 | – |
| Altman Z-score | 3.31 (better) | 1.65 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.16% | 3.0% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 8.1% | 63.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 32.0% (better) | 7.0% |
| Buyback yield | 4.1% | 6.8% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 4.3% | 9.8% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 96.2% | 104% |
| Held by insiders | 1.6% | 2.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$98.3M | −$28.6M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 3 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.4% | 11.1% |
Go deeper
- HLT stock overview
- HLT income statement
- HLT valuation and score
- TNL stock overview
- TNL income statement
- TNL valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.