Ralph Lauren vs Tapestry
RL and TPR side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How RL and TPR compare
Ralph Lauren and Tapestry are about the same size, with market caps of $23.4B and $23.2B.
On earnings, Tapestry is cheaper: it trades at 16.0× trailing earnings, against 24.8× for Ralph Lauren.
Ralph Lauren grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (14.7% versus 14.2% for Tapestry).
Tapestry keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 19.1% compared with 11.8% at Ralph Lauren.
Both pay dividends: Ralph Lauren yields 0.97% and Tapestry 1.4%.
Tapestry scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 16 for Ralph Lauren), 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 | RL | TPR |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $23.4B | $23.2B |
| Share price | $392.87 | $116.29 |
| Change, 1 year | 19.9% | 3.0% |
| Change, 5 years | 208% | 174% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.12 | 1.13 |
| Employees | 24K | 21K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 | 19 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Growth score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Performance score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Dividend score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 24.8× | 16.0× (better) |
| P/S | 2.8× (better) | 2.9× |
| P/B | 8.6× (better) | 33.5× |
| EV/EBITDA | 15.3× | 11.8× (better) |
| P/FCF | – | 12.8× |
| PEG | 0.96 | 0.69 (better) |
| FCF yield | – | 7.8% |
| Fair value | $253.76 | $95.67 |
| Margin of safety | −54.8% | −21.5% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 14.7% (better) | 14.2% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 13.0% (better) | 6.9% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 23.7% | 734% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 26.8% | 787% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 19.8% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 70.3% | 77.8% (better) |
| Operating margin | 14.9% | 23.9% (better) |
| Net margin | 11.8% | 19.1% (better) |
| FCF margin | – | 22.6% |
| Return on equity | 37.5% | 197% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 50.8% | 76.9% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.46 (better) | 3.46 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.47 | 0.60 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 22.4× (better) | 16.0× |
| Current ratio | 2.04 (better) | 1.75 |
| Altman Z-score | 6.34 (better) | 4.01 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 | 8 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.97% | 1.4% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 22.4% | 21.3% |
| Years of dividend growth | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Buyback yield | 2.7% | 6.7% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 3.6% | 8.1% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 65.8% | 99.7% |
| Held by insiders | 57.0% | 0.66% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$124M | −$48.4M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 9.1% | 7.9% |
Go deeper
- RL stock overview
- RL income statement
- RL valuation and score
- TPR stock overview
- TPR income statement
- TPR valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.