Household & Personal Products
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
EWCZ vs LFST vs ACHC vs FAT
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Medical - Care Facilities
Medical - Care Facilities
Restaurants
EWCZ vs LFST vs ACHC vs FAT — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Household & Personal Products | Medical - Care Facilities | Medical - Care Facilities | Restaurants |
| Market Cap | $273M | $3.43B | $2.25B | $3M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $211M | $1.49B | $3.37B | $574M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $11M | $23M | $-1.11B | $-226M |
| Gross Margin | 69.4% | 21.7% | 56.2% | 27.4% |
| Operating Margin | 24.4% | 3.0% | 11.7% | -14.1% |
| Forward P/E | 8.5x | 121.1x | 16.4x | — |
| Total Debt | $381M | $194M | $2.65B | $1.47B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $50M | $249M | $133M | $23M |
EWCZ vs LFST vs ACHC vs FAT — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Aug 21 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| European Wax Center… (EWCZ) | 100 | 23.9 | -76.1% |
| LifeStance Health G… (LFST) | 100 | 59.6 | -40.4% |
| Acadia Healthcare C… (ACHC) | 100 | 37.0 | -63.0% |
| FAT Brands Inc. (FAT) | 100 | 3.0 | -97.0% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: EWCZ vs LFST vs ACHC vs FAT
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
EWCZ carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for defensive.
- Beta 1.46, yield 0.3%, current ratio 2.43x
- Better valuation composite
- 5.3% margin vs FAT's -39.3%
- +68.7% vs FAT's -94.2%
LFST is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night.
- Lower volatility, beta 1.20, Low D/E 12.8%, current ratio 1.65x
ACHC is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability.
- Dividend streak 1 yrs, beta 0.84
- Beta 0.84 vs FAT's 1.56
FAT is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure and long-term compounding is your priority.
- Rev growth 23.4%, EPS growth -98.3%, 3Y rev CAGR 70.8%
- -14.2% 10Y total return vs EWCZ's -57.4%
- 23.4% revenue growth vs EWCZ's -1.9%
- 100.0% yield, vs EWCZ's 0.3%, (2 stocks pay no dividend)
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 23.4% revenue growth vs EWCZ's -1.9% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 5.3% margin vs FAT's -39.3% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.84 vs FAT's 1.56 | |
| Dividends | 100.0% yield, vs EWCZ's 0.3%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +68.7% vs FAT's -94.2% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 1.6% ROA vs ACHC's -18.6%, ROIC 8.3% vs 5.9% |
EWCZ vs LFST vs ACHC vs FAT — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
EWCZ vs LFST vs ACHC vs FAT — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
EWCZ leads in 1 of 6 categories
ACHC leads 1 • LFST leads 1 • FAT leads 1 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
EWCZ leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ACHC is the larger business by revenue, generating $3.4B annually — 16.0x EWCZ's $211M. EWCZ is the more profitable business, keeping 5.3% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to FAT's -39.3%. On growth, LFST holds the edge at +21.2% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $211M | $1.5B | $3.4B | $574M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $72M | $100M | $588M | -$44M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $11M | $23M | -$1.1B | -$226M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $59M | $179M | -$215M | -$75M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +69.4% | +21.7% | +56.2% | +27.4% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +24.4% | +3.0% | +11.7% | -14.1% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +5.3% | +1.6% | -32.8% | -39.3% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +28.1% | +12.0% | -6.4% | -13.1% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -2.2% | +21.2% | +7.6% | -2.3% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +182.1% | — | -49.8% | -23.7% |
Valuation Metrics
ACHC leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 26.5x trailing earnings, EWCZ trades at a 94% valuation discount to LFST's 442.5x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, ACHC's 8.3x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than LFST's 42.0x.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $273M | $3.4B | $2.3B | $3M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $604M | $3.4B | $4.8B | $1.5B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 26.45x | 442.50x | -2.01x | -0.01x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 8.47x | 121.07x | 16.42x | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 8.88x | 41.98x | 8.27x | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.26x | 2.41x | 0.68x | 0.00x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 2.98x | 2.28x | 1.04x | — |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 4.87x | 31.20x | — | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
LFST leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
EWCZ delivers a 10.7% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $11 in annual profit, vs $-41 for ACHC. LFST carries lower financial leverage with a 0.13x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to EWCZ's 4.16x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), EWCZ scores 7/9 vs FAT's 2/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +10.7% | +1.6% | -40.9% | — |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +1.6% | +1.1% | -18.6% | -18.0% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +8.3% | +1.2% | +5.9% | -3.8% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +7.0% | +1.3% | +7.5% | -5.0% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 7 | 5 | 2 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 4.16x | 0.13x | 1.24x | — |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $331M | -$55M | $2.5B | $1.5B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $50M | $249M | $133M | $23M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $381M | $194M | $2.7B | $1.5B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 1.78x | 3.30x | -5.99x | -0.54x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
FAT leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in FAT five years ago would be worth $9,149 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $3,823 for ACHC. Over the past 12 months, EWCZ leads with a +68.7% total return vs FAT's -94.2%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors FAT at 6.8% vs EWCZ's -30.9% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +69.2% | +27.2% | +71.2% | -52.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +68.7% | +60.6% | +1.2% | -94.2% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -67.0% | +4.1% | -64.5% | +21.9% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -57.4% | -59.6% | -61.8% | -8.5% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -57.4% | -59.6% | -58.5% | -14.2% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -30.9% | +1.4% | -29.2% | +6.8% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — LFST and ACHC each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
ACHC is the less volatile stock with a 0.84 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than FAT's 1.56 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. LFST currently trades 99.6% from its 52-week high vs FAT's 4.7% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.46x | 1.20x | 0.84x | 1.56x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $6.52 | $8.89 | $30.20 | $3.45 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $3.22 | $3.74 | $11.43 | $0.06 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +89.3% | +99.6% | +81.0% | +4.7% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 56.3 | 60.4 | 46.2 | 32.2 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 619K | 2.9M | 3.1M | 85K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — ACHC and FAT each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: EWCZ as "Hold", LFST as "Buy", ACHC as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 5.1% upside for LFST (target: $9) vs -3.9% for ACHC (target: $24). For income investors, FAT offers the higher dividend yield at 100.00% vs EWCZ's 0.29%.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Buy | Buy | — |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $5.80 | $9.30 | $23.50 | — |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 8 | 11 | 25 | — |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +0.3% | — | — | +100.0% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | — | 1 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.02 | — | — | $0.56 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +14.7% | 0.0% | +2.2% | 0.0% |
EWCZ leads in 1 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow). ACHC leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
EWCZ vs LFST vs ACHC vs FAT: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is EWCZ or LFST or ACHC or FAT a better buy right now?
For growth investors, FAT Brands Inc.
(FAT) is the stronger pick with 23. 4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -1. 9% for European Wax Center, Inc. (EWCZ). European Wax Center, Inc. (EWCZ) offers the better valuation at 26. 5x trailing P/E (8. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate LifeStance Health Group, Inc. (LFST) a "Buy" — based on 11 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 — EWCZ or LFST or ACHC or FAT?
On trailing P/E, European Wax Center, Inc.
(EWCZ) is the cheapest at 26. 5x versus LifeStance Health Group, Inc. at 442. 5x. On forward P/E, European Wax Center, Inc. is actually cheaper at 8. 5x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — EWCZ or LFST or ACHC or FAT?
Over the past 5 years, FAT Brands Inc.
(FAT) delivered a total return of -8. 5%, compared to -61. 8% for Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. (ACHC). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: FAT returned -14. 2% versus LFST's -59. 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 — EWCZ or LFST or ACHC or FAT?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc.
(ACHC) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 84β versus FAT Brands Inc. 's 1. 56β — meaning FAT is approximately 85% more volatile than ACHC relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, LifeStance Health Group, Inc. (LFST) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 13% versus 4% for European Wax Center, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — EWCZ or LFST or ACHC or FAT?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), FAT Brands Inc.
(FAT) is pulling ahead at 23. 4% versus -1. 9% for European Wax Center, Inc. (EWCZ). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: LifeStance Health Group, Inc. grew EPS 113. 3% year-over-year, compared to -537. 4% for Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, FAT leads at 70. 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 — EWCZ or LFST or ACHC or FAT?
European Wax Center, Inc.
(EWCZ) is the more profitable company, earning 4. 8% net margin versus -33. 3% for Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. — meaning it keeps 4. 8% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: EWCZ leads at 22. 0% versus -8. 8% for FAT. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — EWCZ leads at 73. 6%, 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 EWCZ or LFST or ACHC or FAT more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, European Wax Center, Inc.
(EWCZ) trades at 8. 5x forward P/E versus 121. 1x for LifeStance Health Group, Inc. — 112. 6x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for LFST: 5. 1% to $9. 30.
08Which pays a better dividend — EWCZ or LFST or ACHC or FAT?
In this comparison, FAT (100.
0% yield), EWCZ (0. 3% yield) pay a dividend. LFST, ACHC do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is EWCZ or LFST or ACHC or FAT better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc.
(ACHC) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 84)). Both have compounded well over 10 years (ACHC: -58. 5%, EWCZ: -57. 4%), 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 EWCZ and LFST and ACHC and FAT?
These companies operate in different sectors (EWCZ (Consumer Defensive) and LFST (Healthcare) and ACHC (Healthcare) and FAT (Consumer Cyclical)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: EWCZ is a small-cap quality compounder stock; LFST is a small-cap quality compounder stock; ACHC is a small-cap quality compounder stock; FAT is a small-cap high-growth stock. FAT pays a dividend while EWCZ, LFST, ACHC 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.