1 800 Flowers Com vs Star Group, L.P.
FLWS and SGU side by side, both in miscellaneous retail. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How FLWS and SGU compare
Star Group, L.P. is the larger company, worth 2.7 times as much as 1 800 Flowers Com ($429M against $161M).
Star Group, L.P. grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (7.6% versus −10.8% for 1 800 Flowers Com).
Star Group, L.P. keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 4.6% compared with −9.3% at 1 800 Flowers Com.
Star Group, L.P. pays a dividend yielding 4.4%; 1 800 Flowers Com does not pay one.
Star Group, L.P. scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 3 for 1 800 Flowers Com), 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 | FLWS | SGU |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $161M | $429M |
| Share price | $2.51 | $13.08 |
| Change, 1 year | −21.6% | 10.1% |
| Change, 5 years | −92.6% | 21.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.48 | 0.29 |
| Employees | – | 3,024 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 3 | 16 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 4.9× |
| P/S | 0.1× (better) | 0.2× |
| P/B | 1.7× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 3.3× |
| P/FCF | – | 7.6× |
| FCF yield | −3.9% | 13.2% (better) |
| Fair value | $3.99 | $33.86 |
| Margin of safety | 37.1% | 61.4% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −10.8% | 7.6% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −6.7% | 4.0% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 30.3% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 36.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 37.9% | – |
| Operating margin | −8.4% | 7.1% (better) |
| Net margin | −9.3% | 4.6% (better) |
| FCF margin | −0.43% | 3.0% (better) |
| Return on equity | −87.7% | – |
| Return on invested capital | −23.6% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 2.88 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 0.85 |
| Interest coverage | −6.9× | – |
| Current ratio | 0.85 | 0.87 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.25 | – |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 4.4% |
| Payout ratio | – | 30.4% |
| Buyback yield | 0.70% | 2.6% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 0.70% | 7.0% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 52.2% | 41.9% |
| Held by insiders | 39.0% | 10.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$7.6M | $0 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 19.6% | 0.17% |
Go deeper
- FLWS stock overview
- FLWS income statement
- FLWS valuation and score
- SGU stock overview
- SGU income statement
- SGU valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.