Vail Resorts vs StubHub
MTN and STUB 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 STUB compare
Vail Resorts is the larger company, worth 2.8 times as much as StubHub ($5.4B against $1.9B).
StubHub grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (7.9% versus −4.3% for Vail Resorts).
Vail Resorts keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 5.2% compared with −91.3% at StubHub.
Vail Resorts pays a dividend yielding 5.9%; StubHub does not pay one.
Vail Resorts scores higher on the StockData Score (9 against 7 for StubHub), 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 | STUB |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $5.4B | $1.9B |
| Share price | $151.17 | $5.05 |
| Change, 1 year | 0.63% | −73.8% |
| Change, 5 years | −55.9% | – |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.80 | 1.32 |
| Employees | 40K | 900 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 (better) | 7 |
| Valuation score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 36.7× | – |
| P/S | 1.9× | 1.0× (better) |
| P/B | 22.4× | 1.2× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 11.9× | – |
| P/FCF | 21.7× | 3.0× (better) |
| FCF yield | 4.6% | 32.9% (better) |
| Fair value | $140.60 | $10.35 |
| Margin of safety | −7.5% | 51.2% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −4.3% | 7.9% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 8.2% | – |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −47.3% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −45.3% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 5.7% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 82.1% |
| Operating margin | 14.8% (better) | −69.7% |
| Net margin | 5.2% (better) | −91.3% |
| FCF margin | 8.7% | 32.7% (better) |
| Return on equity | 44.4% (better) | −141% |
| Return on invested capital | 10.1% (better) | −60.6% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 13.25 | 0.86 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.02 | – |
| Interest coverage | 2.0× (better) | −14.5× |
| Current ratio | 0.80 | 1.04 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.51 (better) | −0.95 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 5.9% | – |
| Payout ratio | 215% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | – |
| Buyback yield | 0.84% (better) | 0.00% |
| Shareholder yield | 6.7% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 130% | 74.5% |
| Held by insiders | 11.0% | 49.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $5.0M (better) | −$11.3M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 20.2% | 14.8% |
Go deeper
- MTN stock overview
- MTN income statement
- MTN valuation and score
- STUB stock overview
- STUB income statement
- STUB valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.