Onespaworld vs Planet Fitness
OSW and PLNT side by side, both in miscellaneous amusement and recreation. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How OSW and PLNT compare
Planet Fitness is the larger company, worth 1.5 times as much as Onespaworld ($4.6B against $3.1B).
Planet Fitness grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (11.7% versus 9.8% for Onespaworld).
Planet Fitness keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 16.1% compared with 8.3% at Onespaworld.
Onespaworld pays a dividend yielding 0.65%; Planet Fitness does not pay one.
Onespaworld scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 7 for Planet Fitness), 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 | OSW | PLNT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.1B | $4.6B |
| Share price | $30.80 | $61.18 |
| Change, 1 year | 43.3% | −41.0% |
| Change, 5 years | 179% | −32.1% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.80 | 0.76 |
| Employees | 5,395 | 4,020 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 (better) | 7 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 3 | 3 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 36.7× | – |
| P/S | 3.0× (better) | 3.2× |
| P/B | 5.4× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 25.8× | 11.4× (better) |
| P/FCF | 32.7× | 21.6× (better) |
| PEG | 3.03 | – |
| FCF yield | 3.1% | 4.6% (better) |
| Fair value | $21.01 | $56.15 |
| Margin of safety | −46.6% | −9.0% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 9.8% | 11.7% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 51.4% (better) | 26.6% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 14.7% (better) | 12.3% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 18.3% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 81.5% |
| Operating margin | 9.1% | 29.9% (better) |
| Net margin | 8.3% | 16.1% (better) |
| FCF margin | 9.2% | 14.9% (better) |
| Return on equity | 15.1% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 14.7% | 21.1% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.12 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.32 (better) | 3.62 |
| Interest coverage | 18.2× (better) | 3.3× |
| Current ratio | 2.22 (better) | 1.53 |
| Altman Z-score | 13.88 (better) | 1.19 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.65% | – |
| Payout ratio | 23.9% | – |
| Buyback yield | 1.9% | 14.1% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 2.5% | 14.1% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 109% | 115% |
| Held by insiders | 3.1% | 0.67% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$14.9M | $732K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.2% | 10.9% |
Go deeper
- OSW stock overview
- OSW income statement
- OSW valuation and score
- PLNT stock overview
- PLNT income statement
- PLNT valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.