H World vs Las Vegas Sands
HTHT and LVS side by side, both in hotels and motels. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How HTHT and LVS compare
Las Vegas Sands grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (18.1% versus 5.9% for H World).
H World keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 20.1% compared with 12.6% at Las Vegas Sands.
Las Vegas Sands pays a dividend yielding 3.1%; H World does not pay one.
Las Vegas Sands scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 13 for H World), 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 | HTHT | LVS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | – | $23.9B |
| Share price | $47.67 | $36.97 |
| Change, 1 year | 24.5% | −37.1% |
| Change, 5 years | 2.4% | −13.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.58 | 0.83 |
| Employees | 100K | 42K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 | 16 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 5 | 5 |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 14.4× |
| P/S | – | 1.7× |
| P/B | – | 41.2× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 8.2× |
| P/FCF | – | 8.9× |
| FCF yield | – | 11.3% |
| Fair value | – | $52.71 |
| Margin of safety | – | 29.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.9% | 18.1% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 19.9% | 34.7% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 66.7% (better) | 22.3% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 66.7% (better) | 29.8% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 26.9% (better) | 21.5% |
| Net margin | 20.1% (better) | 12.6% |
| FCF margin | – | 19.7% |
| Return on equity | 38.7% | 134% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 97.4% (better) | 18.4% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.30 (better) | 26.27 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −1.40 | 2.71 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 20.2× (better) | 3.9× |
| Current ratio | 1.21 (better) | 1.00 |
| Altman Z-score | – | 2.28 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 3.1% |
| Payout ratio | 76.9% | 54.3% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 2 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 4.8% |
| Buyback yield | – | 10.6% |
| Shareholder yield | – | 13.7% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 5.1% | 41.6% |
| Held by insiders | 32.2% | 66.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$1.6M (better) | −$243M |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | – | 8.5% |
Go deeper
- HTHT stock overview
- HTHT income statement
- HTHT valuation and score
- LVS stock overview
- LVS income statement
- LVS valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.