Ralph Lauren vs Tapestry
RL and TPR side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How RL and TPR compare
Ralph Lauren and Tapestry are about the same size, with market caps of $23.5B and $26.6B.
On earnings, Tapestry is cheaper: it trades at 17.2× trailing earnings, against 22.6× for Ralph Lauren.
Tapestry grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (13.7% versus 12.8% for Ralph Lauren).
Tapestry keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 19.7% compared with 12.6% at Ralph Lauren.
Both pay dividends: Ralph Lauren yields 0.97% and Tapestry 1.2%.
Tapestry scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 16 for Ralph Lauren), 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 | RL | TPR |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $23.5B | $26.6B |
| Share price | $394.05 | $133.34 |
| Change, 1 year | 17.7% | 25.7% |
| Change, 5 years | 223% | 190% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.12 | 1.09 |
| Employees | 24K | 21K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 | 19 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Growth score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Performance score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Dividend score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 22.6× | 17.2× (better) |
| P/S | 2.7× (better) | 3.2× |
| P/B | 8.6× (better) | 77.3× |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.3× | 13.0× (better) |
| P/FCF | – | 14.1× |
| PEG | 0.87 | 0.74 (better) |
| FCF yield | – | 7.1% |
| Fair value | $296.78 | $102.29 |
| Margin of safety | −32.8% | −30.4% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 12.8% | 13.7% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 13.0% (better) | 6.9% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 25.5% | 494% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 28.8% | 542% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 19.8% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 71.8% | 78.3% (better) |
| Operating margin | 16.0% | 24.5% (better) |
| Net margin | 12.6% | 19.7% (better) |
| FCF margin | – | 23.0% |
| Return on equity | 40.4% | 434% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 49.6% | 74.3% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.45 (better) | 7.55 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.36 | 0.83 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 26.0× (better) | 17.0× |
| Current ratio | 1.97 (better) | 1.24 |
| Altman Z-score | 6.40 (better) | 4.13 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 | 8 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.97% | 1.2% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 21.0% | 20.8% |
| Years of dividend growth | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Buyback yield | 3.5% | 5.5% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 4.4% | 6.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 65.8% | 99.7% |
| Held by insiders | 57.0% | 0.62% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$124M | −$43.4M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 8.8% | 8.5% |
Go deeper
- RL stock overview
- RL income statement
- RL valuation and score
- TPR stock overview
- TPR income statement
- TPR valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.