Apparel - Manufacturers
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
FIGS vs LULU vs NKE vs GOOS vs ONON
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Apparel - Retail
Apparel - Footwear & Accessories
Apparel - Manufacturers
Apparel - Retail
FIGS vs LULU vs NKE vs GOOS vs ONON — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Apparel - Manufacturers | Apparel - Retail | Apparel - Footwear & Accessories | Apparel - Manufacturers | Apparel - Retail |
| Market Cap | $2.57B | $14.88B | $52.89B | $549M | $10.58B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $666M | $11.10B | $46.51B | $1.46B | $3.01B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $41M | $1.58B | $2.52B | $22M | $203M |
| Gross Margin | 66.6% | 56.6% | 41.1% | 70.2% | 62.8% |
| Operating Margin | 6.4% | 19.8% | 6.5% | 5.4% | 12.5% |
| Forward P/E | 65.0x | 10.2x | 29.8x | 14.9x | 27.5x |
| Total Debt | $60M | $1.80B | $11.02B | $743M | $582M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $82M | $1.81B | $7.46B | $334M | $1.02B |
FIGS vs LULU vs NKE vs GOOS vs ONON — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Sep 21 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| FIGS, Inc. (FIGS) | 100 | 41.4 | -58.6% |
| Lululemon Athletica… (LULU) | 100 | 33.0 | -67.0% |
| NIKE, Inc. (NKE) | 100 | 30.6 | -69.4% |
| Canada Goose Holdin… (GOOS) | 100 | 33.4 | -66.6% |
| On Holding AG (ONON) | 100 | 118.3 | +18.3% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: FIGS vs LULU vs NKE vs GOOS vs ONON
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
FIGS is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure and sleep-well-at-night is your priority.
- Rev growth 13.6%, EPS growth 11.6%, 3Y rev CAGR 7.7%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.15, Low D/E 13.7%, current ratio 4.94x
- Beta 1.15, current ratio 4.94x
- Beta 1.15 vs LULU's 1.61, lower leverage
LULU carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for valuation efficiency.
- PEG 0.42 vs NKE's 4.82
- Lower P/E (10.2x vs 27.5x)
- 14.2% margin vs GOOS's 1.5%
- 20.1% ROA vs GOOS's 1.2%, ROIC 37.2% vs 12.5%
NKE ranks third and is worth considering specifically for income & stability.
- Dividend streak 23 yrs, beta 1.17, yield 3.5%
- 3.5% yield; 23-year raise streak; the other 4 pay no meaningful dividend
Among these 5 stocks, GOOS doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
ONON is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- 1.9% 10Y total return vs LULU's 108.6%
- 24.2% revenue growth vs NKE's -9.8%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 24.2% revenue growth vs NKE's -9.8% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (10.2x vs 27.5x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 14.2% margin vs GOOS's 1.5% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.15 vs LULU's 1.61, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 3.5% yield; 23-year raise streak; the other 4 pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +214.3% vs LULU's -51.5% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 20.1% ROA vs GOOS's 1.2%, ROIC 37.2% vs 12.5% |
FIGS vs LULU vs NKE vs GOOS vs ONON — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
FIGS vs LULU vs NKE vs GOOS vs ONON — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
LULU leads in 2 of 6 categories
FIGS leads 2 • GOOS leads 1 • NKE leads 1 • ONON leads 0
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
GOOS leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
NKE is the larger business by revenue, generating $46.5B annually — 69.8x FIGS's $666M. LULU is the more profitable business, keeping 14.2% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to GOOS's 1.5%. On growth, FIGS holds the edge at +28.0% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $666M | $11.1B | $46.5B | $1.5B | $3.0B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $50M | $2.7B | $3.7B | $185M | $504M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $41M | $1.6B | $2.5B | $22M | $203M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $39M | $922M | $2.5B | $186M | $277M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +66.6% | +56.6% | +41.1% | +70.2% | +62.8% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +6.4% | +19.8% | +6.5% | +5.4% | +12.5% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +6.1% | +14.2% | +5.4% | +1.5% | +6.8% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +5.9% | +8.3% | +5.3% | +12.7% | +9.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +28.0% | +0.8% | +0.6% | +14.2% | +21.7% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | -19.1% | -30.8% | -4.2% | -19.2% |
Valuation Metrics
LULU leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 10.1x trailing earnings, LULU trades at a 88% valuation discount to FIGS's 80.9x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), LULU offers better value at 0.42x vs NKE's 3.32x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $2.6B | $14.9B | $52.9B | $549M | $10.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $2.5B | $14.9B | $56.4B | $849M | $10.0B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 80.89x | 10.07x | 20.56x | 16.75x | 47.88x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 65.04x | 10.24x | 29.83x | 14.86x | 27.46x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 0.42x | 3.32x | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 53.95x | 5.49x | 12.52x | 5.54x | 16.19x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 4.07x | 1.34x | 1.14x | 0.56x | 2.86x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 6.31x | 3.17x | 5.00x | 2.86x | 5.67x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 48.44x | 16.14x | 16.18x | 2.74x | 32.54x |
Profitability & Efficiency
LULU leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
LULU delivers a 34.7% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $35 in annual profit, vs $4 for GOOS. FIGS carries lower financial leverage with a 0.14x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to GOOS's 1.33x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), GOOS scores 8/9 vs NKE's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +9.7% | +34.7% | +17.9% | +3.7% | +13.5% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +7.4% | +20.1% | +6.7% | +1.2% | +7.7% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +7.5% | +37.2% | +16.7% | +12.5% | +26.9% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +8.4% | +35.8% | +13.8% | +13.3% | +18.8% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.14x | 0.36x | 0.83x | 1.33x | 0.36x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$22M | -$9M | $3.6B | $408M | -$439M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $82M | $1.8B | $7.5B | $334M | $1.0B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $60M | $1.8B | $11.0B | $743M | $582M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | — | 10.45x | 1.96x | 8.18x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
FIGS leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in ONON five years ago would be worth $10,186 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $2,754 for GOOS. Over the past 12 months, FIGS leads with a +214.3% total return vs LULU's -51.5%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors FIGS at 24.3% vs LULU's -29.5% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +34.9% | -36.6% | -29.2% | -11.9% | -24.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +214.3% | -51.5% | -21.5% | +43.5% | -26.5% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +92.1% | -65.0% | -61.4% | -42.1% | +3.7% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -48.8% | -59.5% | -62.7% | -72.5% | +1.9% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -48.8% | +108.6% | -5.2% | -25.9% | +1.9% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +24.3% | -29.5% | -27.2% | -16.6% | +1.2% |
Risk & Volatility
FIGS leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
FIGS is the less volatile stock with a 1.15 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than LULU's 1.61 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. FIGS currently trades 87.9% from its 52-week high vs LULU's 39.3% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.15x | 1.61x | 1.17x | 1.32x | 1.59x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $17.48 | $340.25 | $80.17 | $15.43 | $61.29 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $4.25 | $127.82 | $42.09 | $8.19 | $31.41 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +87.9% | +39.3% | +55.4% | +77.2% | +58.2% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 46.0 | 31.3 | 36.5 | 60.2 | 50.8 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 3.8M | 2.9M | 20.8M | 386K | 6.6M |
Analyst Outlook
NKE leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: FIGS as "Buy", LULU as "Hold", NKE as "Buy", GOOS as "Hold", ONON as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 62.3% upside for GOOS (target: $19) vs -15.9% for FIGS (target: $13). NKE is the only dividend payer here at 3.48% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Hold | Buy | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $12.92 | $209.14 | $69.88 | $19.33 | $56.50 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 15 | 70 | 71 | 17 | 26 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | +3.5% | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | 23 | 1 | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | $1.55 | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.1% | +7.9% | +5.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
LULU leads in 2 of 6 categories (Valuation Metrics, Profitability & Efficiency). FIGS leads in 2 (Total Returns, Risk & Volatility).
FIGS vs LULU vs NKE vs GOOS vs ONON: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is FIGS or LULU or NKE or GOOS or ONON a better buy right now?
For growth investors, On Holding AG (ONON) is the stronger pick with 24.
2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -9. 8% for NIKE, Inc. (NKE). Lululemon Athletica Inc. (LULU) offers the better valuation at 10. 1x trailing P/E (10. 2x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate FIGS, Inc. (FIGS) a "Buy" — based on 15 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 — FIGS or LULU or NKE or GOOS or ONON?
On trailing P/E, Lululemon Athletica Inc.
(LULU) is the cheapest at 10. 1x versus FIGS, Inc. at 80. 9x. On forward P/E, Lululemon Athletica Inc. is actually cheaper at 10. 2x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Lululemon Athletica Inc. wins at 0. 42x versus NIKE, Inc. 's 4. 82x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — FIGS or LULU or NKE or GOOS or ONON?
Over the past 5 years, On Holding AG (ONON) delivered a total return of +1.
9%, compared to -72. 5% for Canada Goose Holdings Inc. (GOOS). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: LULU returned +108. 6% versus FIGS's -48. 8%. 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 — FIGS or LULU or NKE or GOOS or ONON?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), FIGS, Inc.
(FIGS) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 15β versus Lululemon Athletica Inc. 's 1. 61β — meaning LULU is approximately 40% more volatile than FIGS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, FIGS, Inc. (FIGS) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 14% versus 133% for Canada Goose Holdings Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — FIGS or LULU or NKE or GOOS or ONON?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), On Holding AG (ONON) is pulling ahead at 24.
2% versus -9. 8% for NIKE, Inc. (NKE). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: FIGS, Inc. grew EPS 1158% year-over-year, compared to -42. 1% for NIKE, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, ONON leads at 33. 1% 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 — FIGS or LULU or NKE or GOOS or ONON?
Lululemon Athletica Inc.
(LULU) is the more profitable company, earning 14. 2% net margin versus 5. 4% for FIGS, Inc. — meaning it keeps 14. 2% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: LULU leads at 19. 9% versus 6. 0% for FIGS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — GOOS leads at 69. 9%, 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 FIGS or LULU or NKE or GOOS or ONON more undervalued right now?
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, Lululemon Athletica Inc. (LULU) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 42x versus NIKE, Inc. 's 4. 82x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Lululemon Athletica Inc. (LULU) trades at 10. 2x forward P/E versus 65. 0x for FIGS, Inc. — 54. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for GOOS: 62. 3% to $19. 33.
08Which pays a better dividend — FIGS or LULU or NKE or GOOS or ONON?
In this comparison, NKE (3.
5% yield) pays a dividend. FIGS, LULU, GOOS, ONON do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is FIGS or LULU or NKE or GOOS or ONON better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, NIKE, Inc.
(NKE) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1. 17), 3. 5% yield). On Holding AG (ONON) carries a higher beta of 1. 59 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (NKE: -5. 2%, ONON: +1. 9%), 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 FIGS and LULU and NKE and GOOS and ONON?
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: FIGS is a small-cap quality compounder stock; LULU is a mid-cap deep-value stock; NKE is a mid-cap income-oriented stock; GOOS is a small-cap deep-value stock; ONON is a mid-cap high-growth stock. NKE pays a dividend while FIGS, LULU, GOOS, ONON 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.