Six Flags Entertainment vs Vail Resorts
FUN and MTN side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How FUN and MTN compare
Vail Resorts is the larger company, worth 4.8 times as much as Six Flags Entertainment ($5.5B against $1.1B).
Vail Resorts grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (−4.3% versus −7.1% for Six Flags Entertainment).
Vail Resorts keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 5.2% compared with −31.9% at Six Flags Entertainment.
Vail Resorts pays a dividend yielding 5.8%; Six Flags Entertainment does not pay one.
Vail Resorts scores higher on the StockData Score (9 against 3 for Six Flags Entertainment), 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 | FUN | MTN |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.1B | $5.5B |
| Share price | $11.10 | $154.43 |
| Change, 1 year | −32.1% | 5.7% |
| Change, 5 years | −77.0% | −54.9% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.01 | 0.81 |
| Employees | 4,225 | 40K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 3 | 9 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 0 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 37.5× |
| P/S | 0.4× (better) | 1.9× |
| P/B | – | 22.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 12.0× |
| P/FCF | 7.7× (better) | 22.2× |
| FCF yield | 13.0% (better) | 4.5% |
| Fair value | – | $142.96 |
| Margin of safety | – | −8.0% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −7.1% | −4.3% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 76.4% (better) | 8.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | −47.3% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | −45.3% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 5.7% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 91.5% | – |
| Operating margin | −18.8% | 14.8% (better) |
| Net margin | −31.9% | 5.2% (better) |
| FCF margin | 5.1% | 8.7% (better) |
| Return on equity | −510% | 44.4% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −8.7% | 10.1% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 13.25 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 4.02 |
| Interest coverage | – | 2.0× |
| Current ratio | 0.52 | 0.80 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | −0.38 | 1.52 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 5.8% |
| Payout ratio | – | 215% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Buyback yield | – | 0.82% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 6.6% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 104% | 130% |
| Held by insiders | 14.2% | 11.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $21.5M (better) | $5.0M |
| Superinvestors holding | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 31.7% | 20.2% |
Go deeper
- FUN stock overview
- FUN income statement
- FUN valuation and score
- MTN stock overview
- MTN income statement
- MTN valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.