Apparel - Manufacturers
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
CULP vs LEG vs MHK vs SNBR
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Furnishings, Fixtures & Appliances
Furnishings, Fixtures & Appliances
Furnishings, Fixtures & Appliances
CULP vs LEG vs MHK vs SNBR — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Apparel - Manufacturers | Furnishings, Fixtures & Appliances | Furnishings, Fixtures & Appliances | Furnishings, Fixtures & Appliances |
| Market Cap | $46M | $1.41B | $6.29B | $69M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $201M | $3.03B | $10.99B | $1M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-7M | $225M | $414M | $-132K |
| Gross Margin | 13.0% | 23.7% | 24.3% | 59.0% |
| Operating Margin | 1.0% | 7.5% | 4.9% | -3.3% |
| Forward P/E | — | 9.6x | 11.2x | — |
| Total Debt | $18M | $1.66B | $2.76B | $354M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $6M | $587M | $856M | $2M |
CULP vs LEG vs MHK vs SNBR — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Culp, Inc. (CULP) | 100 | 46.7 | -53.3% |
| Leggett & Platt, In… (LEG) | 100 | 33.7 | -66.3% |
| Mohawk Industries, … (MHK) | 100 | 110.2 | +10.2% |
| Sleep Number Corpor… (SNBR) | 100 | 9.7 | -90.3% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: CULP vs LEG vs MHK vs SNBR
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
CULP is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and sleep-well-at-night is your priority.
- Dividend streak 3 yrs, beta 0.71
- Lower volatility, beta 0.71, Low D/E 30.6%, current ratio 1.78x
- Beta 0.71, current ratio 1.78x
- Beta 0.71 vs SNBR's 2.70
LEG carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for value and quality.
- Better valuation composite
- 7.4% margin vs SNBR's -9.4%
- 1.9% yield; the other 3 pay no meaningful dividend
- +15.3% vs SNBR's -56.8%
MHK is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth -0.5%, EPS growth -27.1%, 3Y rev CAGR -2.8%
- -47.6% 10Y total return vs LEG's -52.6%
- -0.5% revenue growth vs SNBR's -99.9%
SNBR lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | -0.5% revenue growth vs SNBR's -99.9% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 7.4% margin vs SNBR's -9.4% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.71 vs SNBR's 2.70 | |
| Dividends | 1.9% yield; the other 3 pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +15.3% vs SNBR's -56.8% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 6.3% ROA vs CULP's -5.9%, ROIC 8.0% vs -9.6% |
CULP vs LEG vs MHK vs SNBR — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
CULP vs LEG vs MHK vs SNBR — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
LEG leads in 3 of 6 categories
MHK leads 1 • CULP leads 1 • SNBR leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
LEG leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MHK is the larger business by revenue, generating $11.0B annually — 7784.8x SNBR's $1M. LEG is the more profitable business, keeping 7.4% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to SNBR's -9.4%. On growth, MHK holds the edge at +8.0% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $201M | $3.0B | $11.0B | $1M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $3M | $318M | $1.2B | $72M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$7M | $225M | $414M | -$132,000 |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$11M | $207M | $709M | -$21M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +13.0% | +23.7% | +24.3% | +59.0% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +1.0% | +7.5% | +4.9% | -3.3% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -3.6% | +7.4% | +3.8% | -9.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -5.7% | +6.8% | +6.5% | -14.6% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -8.2% | -100.0% | +8.0% | -3.8% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +18.2% | -36.4% | +65.2% | -11.2% |
Valuation Metrics
LEG leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 6.1x trailing earnings, LEG trades at a 65% valuation discount to MHK's 17.3x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, LEG's 6.8x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than MHK's 7.0x.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $46M | $1.4B | $6.3B | $69M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $58M | $2.5B | $8.2B | $422M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -2.35x | 6.10x | 17.33x | -0.53x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 9.56x | 11.23x | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 6.83x | 7.05x | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.21x | 0.35x | 0.58x | 49.07x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.78x | 1.41x | 0.77x | — |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 5.00x | 10.20x | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
LEG leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
LEG delivers a 23.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $23 in annual profit, vs $-13 for CULP. CULP carries lower financial leverage with a 0.31x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to LEG's 1.62x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), LEG scores 7/9 vs SNBR's 2/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -13.3% | +23.1% | +5.0% | — |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -5.9% | +6.3% | +3.0% | -0.0% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -9.6% | +8.0% | +3.9% | -0.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -10.6% | +8.6% | +4.8% | — |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 7 | 6 | 2 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.31x | 1.62x | 0.33x | — |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $12M | $1.1B | $1.9B | $353M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $6M | $587M | $856M | $2M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $18M | $1.7B | $2.8B | $354M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -39.03x | 4.40x | 36.90x | -780.16x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
MHK leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in MHK five years ago would be worth $4,472 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $271 for SNBR. Over the past 12 months, LEG leads with a +15.3% total return vs SNBR's -56.8%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors MHK at 0.9% vs SNBR's -49.6% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +2.6% | -5.8% | -6.2% | -64.7% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -9.1% | +15.3% | +1.9% | -56.8% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -30.4% | -61.9% | +2.9% | -87.2% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -72.6% | -72.2% | -55.3% | -97.3% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -76.0% | -52.6% | -47.6% | -87.6% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -11.4% | -27.5% | +0.9% | -49.6% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — CULP and LEG each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
CULP is the less volatile stock with a 0.71 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than SNBR's 2.70 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. LEG currently trades 79.3% from its 52-week high vs SNBR's 21.7% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.71x | 1.55x | 1.34x | 2.70x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $4.80 | $13.00 | $143.13 | $13.94 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $2.93 | $7.86 | $93.60 | $1.07 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +75.0% | +79.3% | +71.8% | +21.7% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 66.8 | 56.9 | 50.6 | 53.4 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 29K | 2.5M | 1.1M | 2.8M |
Analyst Outlook
CULP leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: LEG as "Hold", MHK as "Hold", SNBR as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 230.0% upside for SNBR (target: $10) vs 16.4% for LEG (target: $12). LEG is the only dividend payer here at 1.88% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Hold | Hold | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $12.00 | $130.00 | $10.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 14 | 32 | 11 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +1.9% | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 3 | 0 | 0 | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $0.19 | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.1% | +0.2% | +2.4% | +1.8% |
LEG leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). MHK leads in 1 (Total Returns). 1 tied.
CULP vs LEG vs MHK vs SNBR: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is CULP or LEG or MHK or SNBR a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Mohawk Industries, Inc.
(MHK) is the stronger pick with -0. 5% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -99. 9% for Sleep Number Corporation (SNBR). Leggett & Platt, Incorporated (LEG) offers the better valuation at 6. 1x trailing P/E (9. 6x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Leggett & Platt, Incorporated (LEG) a "Hold" — based on 14 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.
02Which has the better valuation — CULP or LEG or MHK or SNBR?
On trailing P/E, Leggett & Platt, Incorporated (LEG) is the cheapest at 6.
1x versus Mohawk Industries, Inc. at 17. 3x. On forward P/E, Leggett & Platt, Incorporated is actually cheaper at 9. 6x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — CULP or LEG or MHK or SNBR?
Over the past 5 years, Mohawk Industries, Inc.
(MHK) delivered a total return of -55. 3%, compared to -97. 3% for Sleep Number Corporation (SNBR). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MHK returned -47. 6% versus SNBR's -87. 6%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — CULP or LEG or MHK or SNBR?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Culp, Inc.
(CULP) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 71β versus Sleep Number Corporation's 2. 70β — meaning SNBR is approximately 278% more volatile than CULP relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Culp, Inc. (CULP) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 31% versus 162% for Leggett & Platt, Incorporated — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — CULP or LEG or MHK or SNBR?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Mohawk Industries, Inc.
(MHK) is pulling ahead at -0. 5% versus -99. 9% for Sleep Number Corporation (SNBR). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Leggett & Platt, Incorporated grew EPS 145. 3% year-over-year, compared to -541. 1% for Sleep Number Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, MHK leads at -2. 8% 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.
06Which has better profit margins — CULP or LEG or MHK or SNBR?
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated (LEG) is the more profitable company, earning 5.
8% net margin versus -9. 4% for Sleep Number Corporation — meaning it keeps 5. 8% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: LEG leads at 5. 9% versus -4. 2% for CULP. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — SNBR leads at 59. 0%, 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.
07Is CULP or LEG or MHK or SNBR more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Leggett & Platt, Incorporated (LEG) trades at 9.
6x forward P/E versus 11. 2x for Mohawk Industries, Inc. — 1. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for SNBR: 230. 0% to $10. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — CULP or LEG or MHK or SNBR?
In this comparison, LEG (1.
9% yield) pays a dividend. CULP, MHK, SNBR do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is CULP or LEG or MHK or SNBR better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Culp, Inc.
(CULP) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 71)). Sleep Number Corporation (SNBR) carries a higher beta of 2. 70 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (CULP: -76. 0%, SNBR: -87. 6%), 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.
10What are the main differences between CULP and LEG and MHK and SNBR?
Both stocks operate in the Consumer Cyclical sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
In terms of investment character: CULP is a small-cap quality compounder stock; LEG is a small-cap deep-value stock; MHK is a small-cap deep-value stock; SNBR is a small-cap quality compounder stock. LEG pays a dividend while CULP, MHK, SNBR 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.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.