APLE vs PK

For growth investors, Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc.

(APLE) is the stronger pick with -1. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -2. 2% for Park Hotels & Resorts Inc. (PK). Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc. (APLE) offers the better valuation at 18. 9x trailing P/E (20. 8x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc. (APLE) a "Buy" — based on 17 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.

On forward P/E, Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc.

is actually cheaper at 20. 8x.

Over the past 5 years, Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc.

(APLE) delivered a total return of +16. 0%, compared to -24. 2% for Park Hotels & Resorts Inc. (PK). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: APLE returned +19. 1% versus PK's -11. 3%. 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), Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc.

(APLE) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 85β versus Park Hotels & Resorts Inc. 's 1. 32β — meaning PK is approximately 55% more volatile than APLE relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc. (APLE) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 56% versus 138% for Park Hotels & Resorts Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc.

(APLE) is pulling ahead at -1. 3% versus -2. 2% for Park Hotels & Resorts Inc. (PK). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc. grew EPS -16. 9% year-over-year, compared to -240. 6% for Park Hotels & Resorts Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, APLE leads at 4. 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.

Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc.

(APLE) is the more profitable company, earning 12. 4% net margin versus -11. 1% for Park Hotels & Resorts Inc. — meaning it keeps 12. 4% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: APLE leads at 17. 7% versus 8. 9% for PK. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — APLE leads at 6. 4%, 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.

On forward earnings alone, Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc.

(APLE) trades at 20. 8x forward P/E versus 24. 5x for Park Hotels & Resorts Inc. — 3. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for PK: 2. 5% to $11. 50.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Park Hotels & Resorts Inc. (PK) offers the highest yield at 12. 5%, versus 6. 9% for Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc. (APLE).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc.

(APLE) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 85), 6. 9% yield). Both have compounded well over 10 years (APLE: +19. 1%, PK: -11. 3%), 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.

Both stocks operate in the Real Estate sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

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.