lululemon athletica vs Under Armour
LULU and UAA side by side, both in apparel and other finished products made from fabrics and similar materials. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How LULU and UAA compare
lululemon athletica is the larger company, worth 5.3 times as much as Under Armour ($11.3B against $2.1B).
lululemon athletica grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (1.7% versus −3.6% for Under Armour).
lululemon athletica keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 12.8% compared with −10.0% at Under Armour.
lululemon athletica scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 2 for Under Armour), 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 | LULU | UAA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $11.3B | $2.1B |
| Share price | $107.24 | $4.99 |
| Change, 1 year | −37.0% | 8.0% |
| Change, 5 years | −77.1% | −80.1% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.19 | 1.29 |
| Employees | 39K | 14K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 19 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 8.8× | – |
| P/S | 1.0× | 0.4× (better) |
| P/B | 2.4× | 1.5× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 3.9× | – |
| P/FCF | 8.4× | – |
| PEG | 0.34 | – |
| FCF yield | 12.0% (better) | −3.8% |
| Fair value | $266.66 | $5.67 |
| Margin of safety | 59.8% (better) | 12.0% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 1.7% (better) | −3.6% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 20.3% (better) | −1.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −20.6% (better) | −585% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −17.1% (better) | −623% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 24.1% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 56.1% (better) | 46.8% |
| Operating margin | 17.8% (better) | −2.4% |
| Net margin | 12.8% (better) | −10.0% |
| FCF margin | 12.2% (better) | −1.6% |
| Return on equity | 30.9% (better) | −29.8% |
| Return on invested capital | 42.1% (better) | −5.3% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.41 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.55 | – |
| Interest coverage | – | −1.9× |
| Current ratio | 2.19 (better) | 1.81 |
| Altman Z-score | 4.94 (better) | 1.97 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 10.2% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 10.2% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 78.6% | 92.2% |
| Held by insiders | 9.5% | 39.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$1.4M | $225M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 16.1% | – |
Go deeper
- LULU stock overview
- LULU income statement
- LULU valuation and score
- UAA stock overview
- UAA income statement
- UAA valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.