Arhaus vs Haverty Furniture Companies
ARHS and HVT side by side, both in consumer discretionary. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How ARHS and HVT compare
Arhaus is the larger company, worth 4.9 times as much as Haverty Furniture Companies ($1.9B against $396M).
Haverty Furniture Companies grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.4% versus 5.2% for Arhaus).
Arhaus keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 4.5% compared with 3.1% at Haverty Furniture Companies.
Both pay dividends: Arhaus yields 2.5% and Haverty Furniture Companies 5.2%.
Haverty Furniture Companies scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 14 for Arhaus), 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 | ARHS | HVT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.9B | $396M |
| Share price | $13.75 | $25.40 |
| Change, 1 year | 48.0% | 11.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 18.9% | −19.1% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.90 | 0.95 |
| Employees | 2,800 | 12 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 | 18 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 5 | 5 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 29.9× | – |
| P/S | 1.4× | 0.5× (better) |
| P/B | 4.6× | 1.3× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 11.8× | 4.8× (better) |
| P/FCF | 18.6× | 12.2× (better) |
| FCF yield | 5.4% | 8.2% (better) |
| Fair value | $9.47 | $48.04 |
| Margin of safety | −45.1% | 47.1% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.2% | 6.4% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 22.1% (better) | 0.29% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −11.8% | 26.0% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −11.5% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 74.1% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 39.8% | 61.4% (better) |
| Operating margin | 6.1% | – |
| Net margin | 4.5% (better) | 3.1% |
| FCF margin | 7.3% (better) | 4.1% |
| Return on equity | 15.7% (better) | 8.1% |
| Return on invested capital | 50.9% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Current ratio | 1.30 | 1.69 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.48 | 2.91 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.5% | 5.2% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 76.6% | 86.2% |
| Buyback yield | – | 4.9% |
| Shareholder yield | 2.5% | 10.1% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 37.9% | 81.6% |
| Held by insiders | 58.7% | 7.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$3.6M | −$836K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 12.8% | – |
Go deeper
- ARHS stock overview
- ARHS income statement
- ARHS valuation and score
- HVT stock overview
- HVT income statement
- HVT valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.