MED vs USNA

For growth investors, USANA Health Sciences, Inc.

(USNA) is the stronger pick with 8. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -36. 0% for Medifast, Inc. (MED). USANA Health Sciences, Inc. (USNA) offers the better valuation at 34. 5x trailing P/E (11. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Medifast, Inc. (MED) a "Hold" — based on 12 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.

Over the past 5 years, USANA Health Sciences, Inc.

(USNA) delivered a total return of -79. 7%, compared to -89. 3% for Medifast, Inc. (MED). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MED returned +25. 3% versus USNA's -67. 9%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Medifast, Inc.

(MED) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 94β versus USANA Health Sciences, Inc. 's 1. 34β — meaning USNA is approximately 43% more volatile than MED relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, USANA Health Sciences, Inc. (USNA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 2% versus 8% for Medifast, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), USANA Health Sciences, Inc.

(USNA) is pulling ahead at 8. 3% versus -36. 0% for Medifast, Inc. (MED). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: USANA Health Sciences, Inc. grew EPS -73. 5% year-over-year, compared to -994. 7% for Medifast, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, USNA leads at -2. 5% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.

USANA Health Sciences, Inc.

(USNA) is the more profitable company, earning 1. 2% net margin versus -4. 8% for Medifast, Inc. — meaning it keeps 1. 2% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: USNA leads at 5. 5% versus -3. 7% for MED. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — USNA leads at 78. 3%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.

Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for USNA: 74.

9% to $35. 00.

In this comparison, MED (0.

1% yield) pays a dividend. USNA does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Medifast, Inc.

(MED) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 94)). Both have compounded well over 10 years (MED: +25. 3%, USNA: -67. 9%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.

These companies operate in different sectors (MED (Consumer Cyclical) and USNA (Consumer Defensive)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.

These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.