Park Hotels & Resorts vs Wyndham Hotels & Resorts
PK and WH side by side, both in hotels and motels. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How PK and WH compare
Wyndham Hotels & Resorts is the larger company, worth 1.7 times as much as Park Hotels & Resorts ($5.6B against $3.3B).
Park Hotels & Resorts grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (−1.4% versus −2.2% for Wyndham Hotels & Resorts).
Wyndham Hotels & Resorts keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 14.7% compared with −6.4% at Park Hotels & Resorts.
Both pay dividends: Park Hotels & Resorts yields 6.0% and Wyndham Hotels & Resorts 2.3%.
Wyndham Hotels & Resorts scores higher on the StockData Score (8 against 4 for Park Hotels & 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 | PK | WH |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.3B | $5.6B |
| Share price | $16.60 | $75.20 |
| Change, 1 year | 51.3% | 2.3% |
| Change, 5 years | −21.4% | −13.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.14 | 0.84 |
| Employees | 90 | 2,000 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 4 | 8 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 27.5× |
| P/S | 1.3× (better) | 3.9× |
| P/B | 1.1× (better) | 11.6× |
| EV/EBITDA | 9.2× (better) | 16.6× |
| P/FCF | 41.3× | 17.3× (better) |
| FCF yield | 2.4% | 5.8% (better) |
| Fair value | $13.32 | $51.73 |
| Margin of safety | −24.6% (better) | −45.4% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −1.4% (better) | −2.2% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 24.4% (better) | 1.9% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −381% | −37.9% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −404% | −36.2% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 2.0% | 30.3% (better) |
| Net margin | −6.4% | 14.7% (better) |
| FCF margin | 3.2% | 22.8% (better) |
| Return on equity | −5.0% | 39.6% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 1.4% | 10.0% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 5.57 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 5.30 |
| Interest coverage | 0.3× | 3.0× (better) |
| Current ratio | – | 0.99 |
| Altman Z-score | 0.61 | 1.71 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 6.0% (better) | 2.3% |
| Payout ratio | – | 61.5% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 17.3% | 24.0% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 0.00% | 3.9% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 6.0% | 6.2% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 107% | 106% |
| Held by insiders | 3.0% | 1.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $33.0K (better) | −$15.2M |
| Short interest, % of float | 16.8% | 10.4% |
Go deeper
- PK stock overview
- PK income statement
- PK valuation and score
- WH stock overview
- WH income statement
- WH valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.