Hyatt Hotels vs Marriott International
H and MAR side by side, both in hotels and motels. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How H and MAR compare
Marriott International is the larger company, worth 6.3 times as much as Hyatt Hotels ($112B against $17.8B).
On earnings, Marriott International is cheaper: it trades at 42.8× trailing earnings, against 98.5× for Hyatt Hotels.
Marriott International grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.8% versus 2.8% for Hyatt Hotels).
Marriott International keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 9.7% compared with 2.6% at Hyatt Hotels.
Both pay dividends: Hyatt Hotels yields 0.32% and Marriott International 0.65%.
Marriott International scores higher on the StockData Score (9 against 4 for Hyatt Hotels), 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 | H | MAR |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $17.8B | $112B |
| Share price | $190.18 | $429.18 |
| Change, 1 year | 21.4% | 47.8% |
| Change, 5 years | 125% | 177% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.07 | 0.97 |
| Employees | 242K | 148K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 4 | 9 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Health score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 98.5× | 42.8× (better) |
| P/S | 2.5× (better) | 4.1× |
| P/B | 5.6× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 24.2× (better) | 29.5× |
| P/FCF | 96.5× | 32.1× (better) |
| PEG | – | 4.50 |
| FCF yield | 1.0% | 3.1% (better) |
| Fair value | $68.36 | $220.55 |
| Margin of safety | −178% | −94.6% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 2.8% | 5.8% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 28.0% (better) | 19.9% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 1.6% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 5.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | – | 15.8% |
| Net margin | 2.6% | 9.7% (better) |
| FCF margin | 2.6% | 12.7% (better) |
| Return on equity | 5.6% | – |
| Return on invested capital | – | 27.7% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.39 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.33 | 3.77 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 5.0× |
| Current ratio | 0.63 (better) | 0.53 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.77 | 4.36 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.32% | 0.65% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 30.1% | 27.8% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | −5.6% | 40.6% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 2.3% | 3.5% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 2.6% | 4.2% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 51.3% | 62.2% |
| Held by insiders | 70.5% | 13.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$115M | −$71.0M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 19.8% | 2.8% |
Go deeper
- H stock overview
- H income statement
- H valuation and score
- MAR stock overview
- MAR income statement
- MAR valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.