Bath & Body Works vs Petco Health & Wellness
BBWI 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 BBWI and WOOF compare
Bath & Body Works is the larger company, worth 4.6 times as much as Petco Health & Wellness ($4.3B against $922M).
On earnings, Bath & Body Works is cheaper: it trades at 5.5× trailing earnings, against 28.4× for Petco Health & Wellness.
Petco Health & Wellness grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (−1.3% 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 0.51% at Petco Health & Wellness.
Bath & Body Works pays a dividend yielding 3.8%; Petco Health & Wellness does not pay one.
Bath & Body Works scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 12 for Petco Health & Wellness), 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 | WOOF |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $4.3B | $922M |
| Share price | $21.08 | $2.85 |
| Change, 1 year | −4.0% | −6.4% |
| Change, 5 years | −72.4% | −86.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.24 | 1.31 |
| Employees | 61K | 29K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 (better) | 12 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 5.5× (better) | 28.4× |
| P/S | 0.6× | 0.2× (better) |
| P/B | – | 0.8× |
| EV/EBITDA | 5.9× | 1.9× (better) |
| P/FCF | 4.1× | 3.9× (better) |
| FCF yield | 24.3% | 25.8% (better) |
| Fair value | $44.13 | $5.33 |
| Margin of safety | 52.2% (better) | 46.6% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −2.2% | −1.3% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 2.5% | 3.9% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 7.3% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 13.3% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 0.72% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 44.1% (better) | 38.8% |
| Operating margin | 16.7% (better) | 2.2% |
| Net margin | 10.8% (better) | 0.51% |
| FCF margin | 14.3% (better) | 4.0% |
| Return on equity | – | 2.6% |
| Return on invested capital | 51.9% (better) | 7.7% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.01 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.34 (better) | −0.85 |
| Interest coverage | 4.5× (better) | 1.0× |
| Current ratio | 1.20 (better) | 0.90 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.33 (better) | 1.05 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 8 (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% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 7.3% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 103% | 92.8% |
| Held by insiders | 0.92% | 4.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$14 (better) | −$1.7M |
| Short interest, % of float | 7.7% | 6.3% |
Go deeper
- BBWI stock overview
- BBWI income statement
- BBWI 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.