Columbia Sportswear vs Deckers Outdoor
COLM and DECK side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How COLM and DECK compare
Deckers Outdoor is the larger company, worth 3.2 times as much as Columbia Sportswear ($11.8B against $3.7B).
On earnings, Deckers Outdoor is cheaper: it trades at 11.7× trailing earnings, against 15.8× for Columbia Sportswear.
Deckers Outdoor grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.3% versus 0.07% for Columbia Sportswear).
Deckers Outdoor keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 19.0% compared with 7.0% at Columbia Sportswear.
Columbia Sportswear pays a dividend yielding 1.7%; Deckers Outdoor does not pay one.
Deckers Outdoor scores higher on the StockData Score (20 against 19 for Columbia Sportswear), 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 | COLM | DECK |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.7B | $11.8B |
| Share price | $72.19 | $88.38 |
| Change, 1 year | 41.4% | 10.7% |
| Change, 5 years | −30.1% | 22.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.74 | 1.00 |
| Employees | 9,620 | 6,000 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 19 | 20 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 15.8× | 11.7× (better) |
| P/S | 1.1× (better) | 2.1× |
| P/B | 2.3× (better) | 5.1× |
| EV/EBITDA | 9.8× | 7.6× (better) |
| P/FCF | 13.4× | 11.2× (better) |
| PEG | – | 0.40 |
| FCF yield | 7.5% | 8.9% (better) |
| Fair value | $82.79 | $148.10 |
| Margin of safety | 12.8% | 40.3% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 0.07% | 6.3% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.3% | 16.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 27.9% (better) | 4.4% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 37.8% (better) | 11.7% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 14.9% | 25.6% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 52.1% | 58.9% (better) |
| Operating margin | 8.7% | 23.6% (better) |
| Net margin | 7.0% | 19.0% (better) |
| FCF margin | 8.0% | 18.9% (better) |
| Return on equity | 14.5% | 44.3% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 16.0% | 96.1% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Interest coverage | – | 280× |
| Current ratio | 2.60 | 2.72 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 4.83 | 8.15 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.7% | – |
| Payout ratio | 26.1% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 35.8% | – |
| Buyback yield | 6.2% | 10.6% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 7.9% | 10.6% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 51.1% | 100% |
| Held by insiders | 52.7% | 0.90% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$3.0M | −$1.0M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 18.9% | 8.3% |
Go deeper
- COLM stock overview
- COLM income statement
- COLM valuation and score
- DECK stock overview
- DECK income statement
- DECK valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.