BBWI vs IPAR vs ELF vs ULTA

For growth investors, e.

l. f. Beauty, Inc. (ELF) is the stronger pick with 28. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -0. 2% for Bath & Body Works, Inc. (BBWI). Bath & Body Works, Inc. (BBWI) offers the better valuation at 6. 3x trailing P/E (6. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. (ELF) a "Buy" — based on 27 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 trailing P/E, Bath & Body Works, Inc.

(BBWI) is the cheapest at 6. 3x versus e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. at 32. 2x. On forward P/E, Bath & Body Works, Inc. is actually cheaper at 6. 5x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Ulta Beauty, Inc. wins at 0. 35x versus Bath & Body Works, Inc. 's 14. 00x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, e.

l. f. Beauty, Inc. (ELF) delivered a total return of +105. 0%, compared to -57. 5% for Bath & Body Works, Inc. (BBWI). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: IPAR returned +255. 2% versus BBWI's -47. 6%. 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), Inter Parfums, Inc.

(IPAR) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 54β versus e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. 's 2. 36β — meaning ELF is approximately 334% more volatile than IPAR relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Inter Parfums, Inc. (IPAR) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 20% versus 78% for Ulta Beauty, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), e.

l. f. Beauty, Inc. (ELF) is pulling ahead at 28. 3% versus -0. 2% for Bath & Body Works, Inc. (BBWI). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Inter Parfums, Inc. grew EPS 2. 3% year-over-year, compared to -15. 0% for Bath & Body Works, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, ELF leads at 49. 6% 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.

Inter Parfums, Inc.

(IPAR) is the more profitable company, earning 11. 3% net margin versus 8. 5% for e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. — meaning it keeps 11. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ULTA leads at 39. 1% versus 12. 0% for ELF. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — ELF leads at 71. 2%, 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.

The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.

By this metric, Ulta Beauty, Inc. (ULTA) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 35x versus Bath & Body Works, Inc. 's 14. 00x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Bath & Body Works, Inc. (BBWI) trades at 6. 5x forward P/E versus 19. 9x for e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. — 13. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for ELF: 54. 0% to $95. 17.

In this comparison, BBWI (4.

1% yield), IPAR (3. 4% yield) pay a dividend. ELF, ULTA do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Inter Parfums, Inc.

(IPAR) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 54), 3. 4% yield, +255. 2% 10Y return). e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. (ELF) carries a higher beta of 2. 36 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (IPAR: +255. 2%, ELF: +133. 1%), 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 (BBWI (Consumer Cyclical) and IPAR (Consumer Defensive) and ELF (Consumer Defensive) and ULTA (Consumer Cyclical)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.

In terms of investment character: BBWI is a small-cap deep-value stock; IPAR is a small-cap deep-value stock; ELF is a small-cap high-growth stock; ULTA is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. BBWI, IPAR pay a dividend while ELF, ULTA do not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. 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.