ELF vs AMZN

For growth investors, e.

l. f. Beauty, Inc. (ELF) is the stronger pick with 28. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 12. 4% for Amazon. com, Inc. (AMZN). e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. (ELF) offers the better valuation at 32. 0x trailing P/E (19. 8x 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, e.

l. f. Beauty, Inc. (ELF) is the cheapest at 32. 0x versus Amazon. com, Inc. at 38. 3x. On forward P/E, e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. is actually cheaper at 19. 8x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. wins at 0. 49x versus Amazon. com, Inc. 's 1. 26x — 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 +100. 9%, compared to +66. 3% for Amazon. com, Inc. (AMZN). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: AMZN returned +715. 9% versus ELF's +131. 8%. 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), Amazon.

com, Inc. (AMZN) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 51β versus e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. 's 2. 36β — meaning ELF is approximately 56% more volatile than AMZN relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Amazon. com, Inc. (AMZN) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 37% versus 41% for e. l. f. 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 12. 4% for Amazon. com, Inc. (AMZN). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Amazon. com, Inc. grew EPS 29. 7% year-over-year, compared to -13. 1% for e. l. f. Beauty, 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.

Amazon.

com, Inc. (AMZN) is the more profitable company, earning 10. 8% net margin versus 8. 5% for e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. — meaning it keeps 10. 8% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ELF leads at 12. 0% versus 11. 2% for AMZN. 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, e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. (ELF) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 49x versus Amazon. com, Inc. 's 1. 26x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. (ELF) trades at 19. 8x forward P/E versus 35. 3x for Amazon. com, Inc. — 15. 5x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for ELF: 54. 9% to $95. 17.

None of the stocks in this comparison currently pay a material dividend.

All are effectively zero-yield and should be held for capital appreciation rather than income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Amazon.

com, Inc. (AMZN) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (+715. 9% 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 (AMZN: +715. 9%, ELF: +131. 8%), 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 (ELF (Consumer Defensive) and AMZN (Consumer Cyclical)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.

In terms of investment character: ELF is a small-cap high-growth stock; AMZN is a mega-cap quality compounder stock. 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.