Natures Sunshine Products vs Prestige Consumer Healthcare
NATR and PBH side by side, both in drugs. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How NATR and PBH compare
Prestige Consumer Healthcare is the larger company, worth 11 times as much as Natures Sunshine Products ($2.3B against $216M).
On earnings, Natures Sunshine Products is cheaper: it trades at 12.1× trailing earnings, against 13.7× for Prestige Consumer Healthcare.
Natures Sunshine Products grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.8% versus −1.4% for Prestige Consumer Healthcare).
Prestige Consumer Healthcare keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 15.6% compared with 3.7% at Natures Sunshine Products.
Natures Sunshine Products scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 12 for Prestige Consumer Healthcare), 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 | NATR | PBH |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $216M | $2.3B |
| Share price | $12.25 | $49.06 |
| Change, 1 year | −8.7% | −19.2% |
| Change, 5 years | −28.9% | −22.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.48 | 0.40 |
| Employees | 806 | 890 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 (better) | 12 |
| Valuation score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Growth score | 1 | 1 |
| Performance score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 12.1× (better) | 13.7× |
| P/S | 0.4× (better) | 2.1× |
| P/B | – | 1.2× |
| EV/EBITDA | 3.1× (better) | 13.2× |
| P/FCF | 11.9× | 9.9× (better) |
| FCF yield | 8.4% | 10.1% (better) |
| Fair value | $24.51 | $65.02 |
| Margin of safety | 50.0% (better) | 24.6% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.8% (better) | −1.4% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.5% (better) | 2.9% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 28.3% (better) | −19.2% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 36.5% (better) | −16.2% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −0.19% | 3.8% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 73.2% (better) | 53.5% |
| Operating margin | 6.0% | 26.3% (better) |
| Net margin | 3.7% | 15.6% (better) |
| FCF margin | 3.7% | 21.3% (better) |
| Return on equity | – | 9.1% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 8.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 1.05 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 5.98 |
| Interest coverage | 208× | – |
| Current ratio | 2.60 | 3.23 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 4.66 (better) | 1.61 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 3.0% | 5.2% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 3.0% | 5.2% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 90.1% | 113% |
| Held by insiders | 25.6% | 1.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $518K (better) | −$424K |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.5% | 9.9% |
Go deeper
- NATR stock overview
- NATR income statement
- NATR valuation and score
- PBH stock overview
- PBH income statement
- PBH valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.