Natures Sunshine Products vs Turning Point Brands
NATR and TPB side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How NATR and TPB compare
Turning Point Brands is the larger company, worth 6.1 times as much as Natures Sunshine Products ($1.1B against $182M).
On earnings, Natures Sunshine Products is cheaper: it trades at 12.6× trailing earnings, against 40.0× for Turning Point Brands.
Turning Point Brands grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (23.8% versus 1.2% for Natures Sunshine Products).
Turning Point Brands keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 5.1% compared with 3.1% at Natures Sunshine Products.
Turning Point Brands pays a dividend yielding 0.57%; Natures Sunshine Products does not pay one.
Natures Sunshine Products scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 11 for Turning Point Brands), 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 | NATR | TPB |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $182M | $1.1B |
| Share price | $10.36 | $55.55 |
| Change, 1 year | −49.9% | −44.6% |
| Change, 5 years | −43.5% | 48.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.50 | 0.64 |
| Employees | 806 | 484 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 (better) | 11 |
| Valuation score | 6 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 | 2 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 12.6× (better) | 40.0× |
| P/S | 0.4× (better) | 2.1× |
| EV/EBITDA | 2.4× (better) | 20.1× |
| P/FCF | 17.3× (better) | 46.7× |
| PEG | – | 0.58 |
| FCF yield | 5.8% (better) | 2.1% |
| Fair value | $22.93 | $34.55 |
| Margin of safety | 54.8% (better) | −60.8% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 1.2% | 23.8% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.5% (better) | 2.7% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −2.9% (better) | −47.7% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 1.2% (better) | −51.1% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −0.19% | 10.9% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 73.1% (better) | 58.4% |
| Operating margin | 5.3% | 10.9% (better) |
| Net margin | 3.1% | 5.1% (better) |
| FCF margin | 2.2% | 4.4% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 0.73 |
| Interest coverage | 177× (better) | 2.3× |
| Current ratio | 2.56 | 5.83 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 4.21 (better) | 3.47 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 | 8 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.57% |
| Payout ratio | – | 22.8% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 3 |
| Buyback yield | 4.4% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 4.4% (better) | 0.57% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 90.1% | 100% |
| Held by insiders | 25.5% | 6.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $3.7M (better) | −$4.1M |
| Short interest, % of float | 8.1% | 17.8% |
Go deeper
- NATR stock overview
- NATR income statement
- NATR valuation and score
- TPB stock overview
- TPB income statement
- TPB valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.