Nu Skin Enterprises vs USANA Health Sciences
NUS and USNA side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How NUS and USNA compare
USANA Health Sciences is the larger company, worth 1.2 times as much as Nu Skin Enterprises ($235M against $195M).
USANA Health Sciences grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (−0.78% versus −15.3% for Nu Skin Enterprises).
USANA Health Sciences keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of −2.3% compared with −17.7% at Nu Skin Enterprises.
Nu Skin Enterprises pays a dividend yielding 6.0%; USANA Health Sciences does not pay one.
Nu Skin Enterprises scores higher on the StockData Score (12 against 11 for USANA Health Sciences), 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 | NUS | USNA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $195M | $235M |
| Share price | $4.01 | $12.73 |
| Change, 1 year | −58.1% | −33.0% |
| Change, 5 years | −91.4% | −87.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.96 | 0.64 |
| Employees | 2,800 | 1,570 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 12 (better) | 11 |
| Valuation score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Health score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/S | 0.1× (better) | 0.3× |
| P/B | 0.4× (better) | 0.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | 9.9× | 1.9× (better) |
| P/FCF | – | 8.0× |
| FCF yield | −13.5% | 12.6% (better) |
| Fair value | $12.88 | $31.71 |
| Margin of safety | 68.9% (better) | 59.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −15.3% | −0.78% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −10.5% | −4.0% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −314% | −225% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −322% | −231% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −2.6% (better) | −37.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 67.8% | 77.3% (better) |
| Operating margin | −2.0% | −0.41% (better) |
| Net margin | −17.7% | −2.3% (better) |
| FCF margin | −2.0% | 3.3% (better) |
| Return on equity | −34.8% | −4.0% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −3.1% | −0.81% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.37 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.58 | – |
| Interest coverage | −1.8× (better) | −9.4× |
| Current ratio | 2.04 | 2.59 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.68 (better) | 3.46 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 6.0% | – |
| Buyback yield | 7.7% (better) | 0.00% |
| Shareholder yield | 13.7% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 74.4% | 66.2% |
| Held by insiders | 5.4% | 40.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$99.5K (better) | −$895K |
| Short interest, % of float | 9.7% | 8.1% |
Go deeper
- NUS stock overview
- NUS income statement
- NUS valuation and score
- USNA stock overview
- USNA income statement
- USNA valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.