BBWI vs SKIN 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 -10. 0% for The Beauty Health Company (SKIN). Bath & Body Works, Inc. (BBWI) offers the better valuation at 6. 3x trailing P/E (6. 6x 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. 6x. 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. 32x — 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 -92. 9% for The Beauty Health Company (SKIN). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ULTA returned +150. 2% versus SKIN's -94. 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), Ulta Beauty, Inc.

(ULTA) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 75β versus e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. 's 2. 27β — meaning ELF is approximately 202% more volatile than ULTA relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. (ELF) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 41% versus 6% for The Beauty Health Company — 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 -10. 0% for The Beauty Health Company (SKIN). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: The Beauty Health Company grew EPS 55. 6% 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.

Ulta Beauty, Inc.

(ULTA) is the more profitable company, earning 9. 3% net margin versus -3. 2% for The Beauty Health Company — meaning it keeps 9. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ULTA leads at 39. 1% versus -6. 9% for SKIN. 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. 32x. 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. 6x forward P/E versus 19. 6x for e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. — 13. 0x 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) pays a dividend. SKIN, ELF, ULTA do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Ulta Beauty, Inc.

(ULTA) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 75), +150. 2% 10Y return). e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. (ELF) carries a higher beta of 2. 27 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (ULTA: +150. 2%, ELF: +129. 7%), 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 SKIN (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; SKIN is a small-cap quality compounder stock; ELF is a small-cap high-growth stock; ULTA is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. BBWI pays a dividend while SKIN, 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.