Life Time vs Onespaworld
LTH and OSW side by side, both in miscellaneous amusement and recreation. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How LTH and OSW compare
Life Time is the larger company, worth 3.3 times as much as Onespaworld ($10.1B against $3.1B).
On earnings, Life Time is cheaper: it trades at 24.5× trailing earnings, against 36.0× for Onespaworld.
Life Time grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (13.0% versus 9.8% for Onespaworld).
Life Time keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 12.7% compared with 8.3% at Onespaworld.
Onespaworld pays a dividend yielding 0.66%; Life Time does not pay one.
Onespaworld scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 13 for Life Time), 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 | LTH | OSW |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $10.1B | $3.1B |
| Share price | $45.10 | $30.22 |
| Change, 1 year | 80.2% | 37.7% |
| Change, 5 years | 132% | 147% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.58 | 0.86 |
| Employees | – | 5,395 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 | 17 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Performance score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 24.5× (better) | 36.0× |
| P/S | 3.1× | 3.0× (better) |
| P/B | 2.9× (better) | 5.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | 12.6× (better) | 25.7× |
| P/FCF | – | 32.5× |
| PEG | – | 2.98 |
| FCF yield | −2.0% | 3.1% (better) |
| Fair value | $54.07 | $21.58 |
| Margin of safety | 16.6% (better) | −40.1% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 13.0% (better) | 9.8% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 25.9% | 51.4% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 45.6% (better) | 14.7% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 43.8% (better) | 18.3% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 47.9% | – |
| Operating margin | 17.4% (better) | 9.1% |
| Net margin | 12.7% (better) | 8.3% |
| FCF margin | −6.3% | 9.2% (better) |
| Return on equity | 13.0% | 15.1% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 9.4% | 14.7% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.43 | 0.12 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.34 | 0.32 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 18.2× |
| Current ratio | 0.73 | 2.22 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.79 | 13.81 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.66% |
| Payout ratio | – | 23.9% |
| Buyback yield | – | 1.9% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 2.5% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 91.3% | 108% |
| Held by insiders | 84.6% | 3.8% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$2.3B | −$8.2M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 41.5% | 6.0% |
Go deeper
- LTH stock overview
- LTH income statement
- LTH valuation and score
- OSW stock overview
- OSW income statement
- OSW valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.