Lifevantage vs Natures Sunshine Products
LFVN and NATR side by side, both in drugs. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How LFVN and NATR compare
Natures Sunshine Products is the larger company, worth 2.9 times as much as Lifevantage ($182M against $62.3M).
On earnings, Natures Sunshine Products is cheaper: it trades at 12.6× trailing earnings, against 23.7× for Lifevantage.
Natures Sunshine Products grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (1.2% versus −24.8% for Lifevantage).
Natures Sunshine Products keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 3.1% compared with 1.6% at Lifevantage.
Lifevantage pays a dividend yielding 3.8%; Natures Sunshine Products does not pay one.
Lifevantage scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 15 for Natures Sunshine Products), 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 | LFVN | NATR |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $62.3M | $182M |
| Share price | $4.97 | $10.36 |
| Change, 1 year | −25.2% | −49.9% |
| Change, 5 years | −32.7% | −43.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.38 | 0.50 |
| Employees | 223 | 806 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 (better) | 15 |
| Valuation score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 1 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 23.7× | 12.6× (better) |
| P/S | 0.4× (better) | 0.4× |
| P/B | 1.9× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 7.4× | 2.4× (better) |
| P/FCF | 7.2× (better) | 17.3× |
| PEG | 0.91 | – |
| FCF yield | 14.0% (better) | 5.8% |
| Fair value | $6.48 | $22.93 |
| Margin of safety | 23.3% | 54.8% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −24.8% | 1.2% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −3.7% | 4.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −73.1% | −2.9% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −72.7% | 1.2% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −15.0% | −0.19% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 76.5% (better) | 73.1% |
| Operating margin | 2.1% | 5.3% (better) |
| Net margin | 1.6% | 3.1% (better) |
| FCF margin | 5.1% (better) | 2.2% |
| Return on equity | 8.2% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 14.0% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | – |
| Interest coverage | – | 177× |
| Current ratio | 1.91 | 2.56 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.42 | 4.21 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 3.8% | – |
| Payout ratio | 88.2% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 1 | – |
| Buyback yield | 2.4% | 4.4% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 6.2% (better) | 4.4% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 47.2% | 90.1% |
| Held by insiders | 27.8% | 25.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $54.8K | $3.7M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 10.0% | 8.1% |
Go deeper
- LFVN stock overview
- LFVN income statement
- LFVN valuation and score
- NATR stock overview
- NATR income statement
- NATR valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.