Hilton Worldwide vs Marriott International
HLT 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 HLT and MAR compare
Marriott International is the larger company, worth 1.3 times as much as Hilton Worldwide ($110B against $83.0B).
On earnings, Marriott International is cheaper: it trades at 42.2× trailing earnings, against 50.3× for Hilton Worldwide.
Hilton Worldwide grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (8.1% versus 5.8% for Marriott International).
Hilton Worldwide keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 13.4% compared with 9.7% at Marriott International.
Both pay dividends: Hilton Worldwide yields 0.16% and Marriott International 0.66%.
Hilton Worldwide scores higher on the StockData Score (10 against 9 for Marriott International), 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 | HLT | MAR |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $83.0B | $110B |
| Share price | $373.09 | $423.16 |
| Change, 1 year | 35.8% | 45.1% |
| Change, 5 years | 158% | 173% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.92 | 0.97 |
| Employees | 259K | 148K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 (better) | 9 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 50.3× | 42.2× (better) |
| P/S | 6.5× | 4.0× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 29.5× | 29.2× (better) |
| P/FCF | 43.0× | 31.7× (better) |
| PEG | 4.77 | 4.44 (better) |
| FCF yield | 2.3% | 3.2% (better) |
| Fair value | $209.75 | $219.03 |
| Margin of safety | −77.9% (better) | −93.2% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 8.1% (better) | 5.8% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 22.8% (better) | 19.9% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 2.1% (better) | 1.6% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 7.1% (better) | 5.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 24.0% (better) | 15.8% |
| Net margin | 13.4% (better) | 9.7% |
| FCF margin | 15.2% (better) | 12.7% |
| Return on invested capital | 38.1% (better) | 27.7% |
| Financial health | ||
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.88 | 3.77 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 4.4× | 5.0× (better) |
| Current ratio | 0.59 (better) | 0.53 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.31 | 4.33 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.16% | 0.66% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 8.1% | 27.8% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 32.0% | 40.6% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 4.1% (better) | 3.6% |
| Shareholder yield | 4.3% (better) | 4.3% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 96.2% | 62.2% |
| Held by insiders | 1.6% | 13.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$98.3M | −$76.4M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.4% | 2.8% |
Go deeper
- HLT stock overview
- HLT income statement
- HLT 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.