Ulta Beauty vs Petco Health & Wellness
ULTA and WOOF side by side, both in miscellaneous retail. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How ULTA and WOOF compare
Ulta Beauty is the larger company, worth 32 times as much as Petco Health & Wellness ($27.4B against $846M).
On earnings, Ulta Beauty is cheaper: it trades at 23.3× trailing earnings, against 26.1× for Petco Health & Wellness.
Ulta Beauty grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (11.2% versus −1.3% for Petco Health & Wellness).
Ulta Beauty keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 9.3% compared with 0.51% at Petco Health & Wellness.
Petco Health & Wellness scores higher on the StockData Score (12 against 11 for Ulta Beauty), 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 | ULTA | WOOF |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $27.4B | $846M |
| Share price | $640.43 | $2.61 |
| Change, 1 year | 26.5% | −25.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 63.4% | −89.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.77 | 1.37 |
| Employees | 65K | 29K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 11 | 12 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 23.3× (better) | 26.1× |
| P/S | 2.1× | 0.1× (better) |
| P/B | 10.4× | 0.7× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.2× | 1.7× (better) |
| P/FCF | 23.8× | 3.6× (better) |
| PEG | 10.54 | – |
| FCF yield | 4.2% | 28.1% (better) |
| Fair value | $501.21 | $5.78 |
| Margin of safety | −27.8% | 54.9% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 11.2% (better) | −1.3% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 15.0% (better) | 3.9% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 0.72% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 5.2% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 52.5% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 39.3% (better) | 38.8% |
| Operating margin | 12.5% (better) | 2.2% |
| Net margin | 9.3% (better) | 0.51% |
| FCF margin | 8.9% (better) | 4.0% |
| Return on equity | 46.1% (better) | 2.6% |
| Return on invested capital | 45.2% (better) | 7.7% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.13 | 0.01 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.07 (better) | −0.85 |
| Interest coverage | – | 1.0× |
| Current ratio | 1.35 (better) | 0.90 |
| Altman Z-score | 6.88 (better) | 1.04 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 4.4% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 4.4% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 99.2% | 92.8% |
| Held by insiders | 0.26% | 4.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$1.8M | −$1.7M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.7% | 6.1% |
Go deeper
- ULTA stock overview
- ULTA income statement
- ULTA valuation and score
- WOOF stock overview
- WOOF income statement
- WOOF valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.