Lands' End vs Urban Outfitters
LE and URBN side by side, both in family clothing stores. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How LE and URBN compare
Urban Outfitters is the larger company, worth 28 times as much as Lands' End ($7.8B against $281M).
On earnings, Lands' End is cheaper: it trades at 0.8× trailing earnings, against 14.2× for Urban Outfitters.
Urban Outfitters grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (11.0% versus 1.4% for Lands' End).
Lands' End keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 30.5% compared with 8.8% at Urban Outfitters.
Urban Outfitters scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 12 for Lands' End), 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 | LE | URBN |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $281M | $7.8B |
| Share price | $9.51 | $90.72 |
| Change, 1 year | −40.7% | 36.7% |
| Change, 5 years | −65.2% | 156% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.43 | 1.10 |
| Employees | 3,900 | 31K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 12 | 13 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 0.8× (better) | 14.2× |
| P/S | 0.2× (better) | 1.2× |
| P/B | 0.6× (better) | 2.7× |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.0× (better) | 8.1× |
| P/FCF | – | 26.3× |
| PEG | – | 0.32 |
| FCF yield | −26.1% | 3.8% (better) |
| Fair value | $10.05 | $77.17 |
| Margin of safety | 5.4% (better) | −17.6% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 1.4% | 11.0% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −4.0% | 12.3% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 5763% (better) | 19.7% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 6913% (better) | 25.2% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −11.4% | 247% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 55.7% (better) | 37.5% |
| Operating margin | 0.58% | 11.3% (better) |
| Net margin | 30.5% (better) | 8.8% |
| FCF margin | −6.4% | 4.6% (better) |
| Return on equity | 97.9% (better) | 20.9% |
| Return on invested capital | 1.1% | 28.2% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.49 | – |
| Interest coverage | 0.3× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.58 | 1.58 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.06 | 4.73 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 9 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | – | 3.9% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 3.9% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 34.1% | 73.4% |
| Held by insiders | 56.0% | 54.2% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$60.5M (better) | −$346M |
| Short interest, % of float | 14.3% | 18.2% |
Go deeper
- LE stock overview
- LE income statement
- LE valuation and score
- URBN stock overview
- URBN income statement
- URBN valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.