Vail Resorts vs United Parks & Resorts
MTN and PRKS 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 MTN and PRKS compare
Vail Resorts is the larger company, worth 3.0 times as much as United Parks & Resorts ($5.4B against $1.8B).
On earnings, United Parks & Resorts is cheaper: it trades at 15.0× trailing earnings, against 36.7× for Vail Resorts.
United Parks & Resorts grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (−1.9% versus −4.3% for Vail Resorts).
United Parks & Resorts keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 7.6% compared with 5.2% at Vail Resorts.
Vail Resorts pays a dividend yielding 5.9%; United Parks & Resorts does not pay one.
Vail Resorts scores higher on the StockData Score (9 against 7 for United Parks & Resorts), 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 | MTN | PRKS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $5.4B | $1.8B |
| Share price | $151.17 | $40.16 |
| Change, 1 year | 0.63% | 17.0% |
| Change, 5 years | −55.9% | −39.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.80 | 1.04 |
| Employees | 40K | 3,300 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 (better) | 7 |
| Valuation score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 0 | 0 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 36.7× | 15.0× (better) |
| P/S | 1.9× | 1.1× (better) |
| P/B | 22.4× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 11.9× | 8.3× (better) |
| P/FCF | 21.7× | 12.1× (better) |
| FCF yield | 4.6% | 8.2% (better) |
| Fair value | $140.60 | $62.51 |
| Margin of safety | −7.5% | 35.8% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −4.3% | −1.9% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 8.2% | 30.9% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −47.3% | −31.4% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −45.3% | −18.3% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 5.7% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 14.8% | 18.6% (better) |
| Net margin | 5.2% | 7.6% (better) |
| FCF margin | 8.7% | 9.2% (better) |
| Return on equity | 44.4% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 10.1% | 12.9% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 13.25 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.02 (better) | 4.59 |
| Interest coverage | 2.0× | 2.4× (better) |
| Current ratio | 0.80 (better) | 0.55 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.51 | 1.75 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 5.9% | – |
| Payout ratio | 215% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | – |
| Buyback yield | 0.84% | 20.0% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 6.7% | 20.0% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 130% | 134% |
| Held by insiders | 11.0% | 63.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $5.0M (better) | −$881K |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 20.2% | 30.2% |
Go deeper
- MTN stock overview
- MTN income statement
- MTN valuation and score
- PRKS stock overview
- PRKS income statement
- PRKS valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.