Deckers Outdoor vs NIKE
DECK and NKE side by side, both in rubber and miscellaneous plastics products. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How DECK and NKE compare
NIKE is the larger company, worth 4.8 times as much as Deckers Outdoor ($56.9B against $11.8B).
On earnings, Deckers Outdoor is cheaper: it trades at 11.7× trailing earnings, against 18.4× for NIKE.
Deckers Outdoor grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.3% versus −1.2% for NIKE).
Deckers Outdoor keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 19.0% compared with 6.7% at NIKE.
NIKE pays a dividend yielding 4.3%; Deckers Outdoor does not pay one.
Deckers Outdoor scores higher on the StockData Score (20 against 17 for NIKE), 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 | DECK | NKE |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $11.8B | $56.9B |
| Share price | $88.38 | $38.32 |
| Change, 1 year | 10.7% | −37.0% |
| Change, 5 years | 22.0% | −78.1% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Employees | 6,000 | 73K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 20 (better) | 17 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 11.7× (better) | 18.4× |
| P/S | 2.1× | 1.2× (better) |
| P/B | 5.1× | 3.7× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 7.6× (better) | 12.5× |
| P/FCF | 11.2× (better) | 27.0× |
| PEG | 0.40 | – |
| FCF yield | 8.9% (better) | 3.7% |
| Fair value | $148.10 | $47.58 |
| Margin of safety | 40.3% (better) | 19.5% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.3% (better) | −1.2% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 16.5% (better) | 0.82% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 4.4% | 6.8% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 11.7% (better) | 6.7% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 25.6% (better) | −10.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 58.9% (better) | 43.1% |
| Operating margin | 23.6% | – |
| Net margin | 19.0% (better) | 6.7% |
| FCF margin | 18.9% (better) | 4.6% |
| Return on equity | 44.3% (better) | 21.6% |
| Return on invested capital | 96.1% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.52 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 0.21 |
| Interest coverage | 280× | – |
| Current ratio | 2.72 (better) | 2.07 |
| Altman Z-score | 8.15 (better) | 3.11 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 4.3% |
| Payout ratio | – | 78.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 17 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 8.8% |
| Buyback yield | 10.6% (better) | 0.04% |
| Shareholder yield | 10.6% (better) | 4.3% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 100% | 64.9% |
| Held by insiders | 0.90% | 15.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$1.0M | $6.0M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 8.3% | 7.4% |
Go deeper
- DECK stock overview
- DECK income statement
- DECK valuation and score
- NKE stock overview
- NKE income statement
- NKE valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.