Oxford Industries vs Ralph Lauren
OXM and RL 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 OXM and RL compare
Ralph Lauren is the larger company, worth 55 times as much as Oxford Industries ($23.4B against $422M).
Ralph Lauren grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (14.7% versus −1.8% for Oxford Industries).
Ralph Lauren keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 11.8% compared with −0.46% at Oxford Industries.
Both pay dividends: Oxford Industries yields 9.9% and Ralph Lauren 0.97%.
Ralph Lauren scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 11 for Oxford Industries), 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 | OXM | RL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $422M | $23.4B |
| Share price | $28.20 | $392.87 |
| Change, 1 year | −25.0% | 19.9% |
| Change, 5 years | −71.8% | 208% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.98 | 1.12 |
| Employees | 6,000 | 24K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 11 | 16 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 24.8× |
| P/S | 0.3× (better) | 2.8× |
| P/B | 0.7× (better) | 8.6× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 15.3× |
| P/FCF | 8.1× | – |
| PEG | – | 0.96 |
| FCF yield | 12.3% | – |
| Fair value | $83.66 | $253.76 |
| Margin of safety | 66.3% (better) | −54.8% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −1.8% | 14.7% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 14.6% (better) | 13.0% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −112% | 23.7% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −114% | 26.8% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 63.6% | 70.3% (better) |
| Operating margin | −0.12% | 14.9% (better) |
| Net margin | −0.46% | 11.8% (better) |
| FCF margin | 3.6% | – |
| Return on equity | −1.2% | 37.5% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −0.21% | 50.8% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.13 (better) | 0.46 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | −0.47 |
| Interest coverage | – | 22.4× |
| Current ratio | 1.17 | 2.04 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.87 | 6.34 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 3 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 9.9% (better) | 0.97% |
| Payout ratio | – | 22.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 22.5% | – |
| Buyback yield | −0.35% | 2.7% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 9.5% (better) | 3.6% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 105% | 65.8% |
| Held by insiders | 4.5% | 57.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $471K (better) | −$124M |
| Short interest, % of float | 26.0% | 9.1% |
Go deeper
- OXM stock overview
- OXM income statement
- OXM valuation and score
- RL stock overview
- RL income statement
- RL valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.