Ralph Lauren vs V F
RL and VFC 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 RL and VFC compare
Ralph Lauren is the larger company, worth 3.2 times as much as V F ($23.4B against $7.2B).
On earnings, Ralph Lauren is cheaper: it trades at 24.8× trailing earnings, against 26.6× for V F.
Ralph Lauren grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (14.7% versus 0.19% for V F).
Ralph Lauren keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 11.8% compared with 2.9% at V F.
Both pay dividends: Ralph Lauren yields 0.97% and V F 2.0%.
Ralph Lauren scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 10 for V F), 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 | VFC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $23.4B | $7.2B |
| Share price | $392.87 | $18.33 |
| Change, 1 year | 19.9% | 25.7% |
| Change, 5 years | 208% | −75.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.12 | 1.32 |
| Employees | 24K | 26K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 (better) | 10 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 2 | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 24.8× (better) | 26.6× |
| P/S | 2.8× | 0.8× (better) |
| P/B | 8.6× | 4.1× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 15.3× | 11.8× (better) |
| PEG | 0.96 (better) | 0.97 |
| Fair value | $253.76 | $15.74 |
| Margin of safety | −54.8% | −16.4% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 14.7% (better) | 0.19% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 13.0% (better) | 0.78% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 23.7% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 26.8% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | −9.3% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 70.3% (better) | 55.0% |
| Operating margin | 14.9% (better) | 6.1% |
| Net margin | 11.8% (better) | 2.9% |
| Return on equity | 37.5% (better) | 17.9% |
| Return on invested capital | 50.8% (better) | 9.0% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.46 (better) | 1.99 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.47 | 3.33 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 22.4× (better) | 3.8× |
| Current ratio | 2.04 (better) | 1.43 |
| Altman Z-score | 6.34 (better) | 1.77 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.97% | 2.0% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 22.4% | 51.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | −28.6% |
| Buyback yield | 2.7% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 3.6% (better) | 2.0% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 65.8% | 101% |
| Held by insiders | 57.0% | 1.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$124M | $1.2M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 9.1% | 9.3% |
Go deeper
- RL stock overview
- RL income statement
- RL valuation and score
- VFC stock overview
- VFC income statement
- VFC valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.