Bath & Body Works vs Ulta Beauty
BBWI and ULTA side by side, both in miscellaneous retail. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BBWI and ULTA compare
Ulta Beauty is the larger company, worth 6.6 times as much as Bath & Body Works ($28.2B against $4.3B).
On earnings, Bath & Body Works is cheaper: it trades at 5.5× trailing earnings, against 24.1× for Ulta Beauty.
Ulta Beauty grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (11.2% versus −2.2% for Bath & Body Works).
Bath & Body Works keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 10.8% compared with 9.3% at Ulta Beauty.
Bath & Body Works pays a dividend yielding 3.8%; Ulta Beauty does not pay one.
Bath & Body Works scores higher on the StockData Score (14 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 | BBWI | ULTA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $4.3B | $28.2B |
| Share price | $21.08 | $660.66 |
| Change, 1 year | −4.0% | 23.4% |
| Change, 5 years | −72.4% | 62.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.24 | 0.77 |
| Employees | 61K | 65K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 (better) | 11 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 5.5× (better) | 24.1× |
| P/S | 0.6× (better) | 2.2× |
| P/B | – | 10.7× |
| EV/EBITDA | 5.9× (better) | 14.7× |
| P/FCF | 4.1× (better) | 24.6× |
| PEG | – | 10.88 |
| FCF yield | 24.3% (better) | 4.1% |
| Fair value | $44.13 | $476.88 |
| Margin of safety | 52.2% (better) | −38.5% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −2.2% | 11.2% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 2.5% | 15.0% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 7.3% (better) | 0.72% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 13.3% (better) | 5.2% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 0.72% | 52.5% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 44.1% (better) | 39.3% |
| Operating margin | 16.7% (better) | 12.5% |
| Net margin | 10.8% (better) | 9.3% |
| FCF margin | 14.3% (better) | 8.9% |
| Return on equity | – | 46.1% |
| Return on invested capital | 51.9% (better) | 45.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.13 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.34 | 0.07 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 4.5× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.20 | 1.35 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.33 | 7.00 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 3.8% | – |
| Payout ratio | 20.7% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 21.7% | – |
| Buyback yield | 3.5% | 4.3% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 7.3% (better) | 4.3% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 103% | 99.2% |
| Held by insiders | 0.92% | 0.26% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$14 (better) | −$1.8M |
| Short interest, % of float | 7.7% | 4.8% |
Go deeper
- BBWI stock overview
- BBWI income statement
- BBWI valuation and score
- ULTA stock overview
- ULTA income statement
- ULTA valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.