Travel Lodging
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
GHG vs AMZN vs MSFT vs H vs AAPL
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Specialty Retail
Software - Infrastructure
Travel Lodging
Consumer Electronics
GHG vs AMZN vs MSFT vs H vs AAPL — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Travel Lodging | Specialty Retail | Software - Infrastructure | Travel Lodging | Consumer Electronics |
| Market Cap | $123M | $2.92T | $3.13T | $16.28B | $4.22T |
| Revenue (TTM) | $921M | $742.78B | $318.27B | $6.22B | $451.44B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $254M | $90.80B | $125.22B | $-34M | $122.58B |
| Gross Margin | 38.1% | 50.6% | 68.3% | 17.6% | 47.9% |
| Operating Margin | 17.5% | 11.5% | 46.8% | 9.2% | 32.6% |
| Forward P/E | 0.3x | 34.8x | 25.3x | 53.0x | 33.8x |
| Total Debt | $1.47B | $152.99B | $112.18B | $4.80B | $112.38B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $1.66B | $86.81B | $30.24B | $788M | $35.93B |
GHG vs AMZN vs MSFT vs H vs AAPL — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| GreenTree Hospitali… (GHG) | 100 | 9.1 | -90.9% |
| Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) | 100 | 222.1 | +122.1% |
| Microsoft Corporati… (MSFT) | 100 | 229.7 | +129.7% |
| Hyatt Hotels Corpor… (H) | 100 | 309.4 | +209.4% |
| Apple Inc. (AAPL) | 100 | 361.6 | +261.6% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: GHG vs AMZN vs MSFT vs H vs AAPL
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
GHG carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for sleep-well-at-night and defensive.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.58, Low D/E 91.6%, current ratio 1.61x
- Beta 0.58, yield 5.0%, current ratio 1.61x
- Lower P/E (0.3x vs 33.8x)
- Beta 0.58 vs AMZN's 1.51
AMZN is the clearest fit if your priority is valuation efficiency.
- PEG 1.24 vs AAPL's 1.89
MSFT ranks third and is worth considering specifically for income & stability.
- Dividend streak 19 yrs, beta 0.89, yield 0.8%
- 39.3% margin vs H's -0.5%
H is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth 117.0%, EPS growth -104.3%, 3Y rev CAGR 29.8%
- 117.0% revenue growth vs GHG's -88.6%
AAPL is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if long-term compounding is your priority.
- 11.7% 10Y total return vs MSFT's 7.9%
- +47.0% vs GHG's -34.9%
- 34.0% ROA vs H's -0.2%, ROIC 67.4% vs 5.8%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 117.0% revenue growth vs GHG's -88.6% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (0.3x vs 33.8x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 39.3% margin vs H's -0.5% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.58 vs AMZN's 1.51 | |
| Dividends | 5.0% yield, vs MSFT's 0.8%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +47.0% vs GHG's -34.9% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 34.0% ROA vs H's -0.2%, ROIC 67.4% vs 5.8% |
GHG vs AMZN vs MSFT vs H vs AAPL — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
GHG vs AMZN vs MSFT vs H vs AAPL — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
MSFT leads in 1 of 6 categories
GHG leads 1 • AAPL leads 1 • AMZN leads 0 • H leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MSFT leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
AMZN is the larger business by revenue, generating $742.8B annually — 806.5x GHG's $921M. MSFT is the more profitable business, keeping 39.3% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to H's -0.5%. On growth, H holds the edge at +108.7% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $921M | $742.8B | $318.3B | $6.2B | $451.4B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $242M | $155.9B | $192.6B | $899M | $160.0B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $254M | $90.8B | $125.2B | -$34M | $122.6B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $21M | -$2.5B | $72.9B | $63M | $129.2B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +38.1% | +50.6% | +68.3% | +17.6% | +47.9% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +17.5% | +11.5% | +46.8% | +9.2% | +32.6% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +27.6% | +12.2% | +39.3% | -0.5% | +27.2% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +2.3% | -0.3% | +22.9% | +1.0% | +28.6% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -89.4% | +16.6% | +18.3% | +108.7% | +16.6% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +89.7% | +74.8% | +23.4% | +95.0% | +21.8% |
Valuation Metrics
GHG leads this category, winning 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 30.9x trailing earnings, MSFT trades at a 20% valuation discount to AAPL's 38.5x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), AMZN offers better value at 1.35x vs AAPL's 2.16x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $123M | $2.92T | $3.13T | $16.3B | $4.22T |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $95M | $2.98T | $3.21T | $20.3B | $4.30T |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 35.80x | 37.82x | 30.86x | -315.69x | 38.53x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 0.28x | 34.77x | 25.34x | 52.98x | 33.78x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 1.35x | 1.64x | — | 2.16x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 22.86x | 20.47x | 19.72x | 22.90x | 29.68x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 5.46x | 4.07x | 11.10x | 2.28x | 10.14x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.52x | 7.14x | 9.15x | 4.45x | 58.49x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 41.56x | 378.98x | 43.66x | 102.39x | 42.72x |
Profitability & Efficiency
AAPL leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
AAPL delivers a 146.7% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $147 in annual profit, vs $-1 for H. MSFT carries lower financial leverage with a 0.33x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to AAPL's 1.52x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), AAPL scores 8/9 vs H's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +15.1% | +23.3% | +33.1% | -0.9% | +146.7% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +5.0% | +11.5% | +19.2% | -0.2% | +34.0% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +0.8% | +14.7% | +24.9% | +5.8% | +67.4% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +0.4% | +15.3% | +29.7% | +4.7% | +69.6% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 8 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.92x | 0.37x | 0.33x | 1.31x | 1.52x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$186M | $66.2B | $81.9B | $4.0B | $76.4B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $1.7B | $86.8B | $30.2B | $788M | $35.9B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $1.5B | $153.0B | $112.2B | $4.8B | $112.4B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 83.77x | 39.96x | 55.65x | 1.28x | — |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — AMZN and AAPL each lead in 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in AAPL five years ago would be worth $22,442 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $2,004 for GHG. Over the past 12 months, AAPL leads with a +47.0% total return vs GHG's -34.9%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors AMZN at 36.8% vs GHG's -32.7% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -28.8% | +19.7% | -10.8% | +3.1% | +6.2% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -34.9% | +43.7% | -2.1% | +38.1% | +47.0% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -69.6% | +156.2% | +39.5% | +46.3% | +67.4% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -80.0% | +64.8% | +72.5% | +114.1% | +124.4% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -75.5% | +697.8% | +787.7% | +254.9% | +1174.1% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -32.7% | +36.8% | +11.7% | +13.5% | +18.7% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — GHG and AAPL each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
GHG is the less volatile stock with a 0.58 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than AMZN's 1.51 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. AAPL currently trades 98.4% from its 52-week high vs GHG's 43.5% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.58x | 1.51x | 0.89x | 1.39x | 0.99x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $2.78 | $278.56 | $555.45 | $180.53 | $292.13 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $1.14 | $185.01 | $356.28 | $121.94 | $193.25 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +43.5% | +97.3% | +75.8% | +94.4% | +98.4% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 44.1 | 81.1 | 54.0 | 59.9 | 69.4 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 22K | 45.5M | 32.5M | 785K | 39.8M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — GHG and MSFT each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: GHG as "Buy", AMZN as "Buy", MSFT as "Buy", H as "Hold", AAPL as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 313.2% upside for GHG (target: $5) vs 10.3% for AAPL (target: $317). For income investors, GHG offers the higher dividend yield at 5.03% vs H's 0.35%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $5.00 | $306.77 | $551.75 | $190.80 | $317.11 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 5 | 94 | 81 | 49 | 110 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +5.0% | — | +0.8% | +0.4% | +0.4% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | — | 19 | 3 | 14 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.41 | — | $3.23 | $0.60 | $1.03 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | +0.6% | +2.0% | +2.1% |
MSFT leads in 1 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow). GHG leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 3 tied.
GHG vs AMZN vs MSFT vs H vs AAPL: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is GHG or AMZN or MSFT or H or AAPL a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Hyatt Hotels Corporation (H) is the stronger pick with 117.
0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -88. 6% for GreenTree Hospitality Group Ltd. (GHG). Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) offers the better valuation at 30. 9x trailing P/E (25. 3x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate GreenTree Hospitality Group Ltd. (GHG) a "Buy" — based on 5 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 — GHG or AMZN or MSFT or H or AAPL?
On trailing P/E, Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) is the cheapest at 30.
9x versus Apple Inc. at 38. 5x. On forward P/E, GreenTree Hospitality Group Ltd. is actually cheaper at 0. 3x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Amazon. com, Inc. wins at 1. 24x versus Apple Inc. 's 1. 89x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.
03Which is the better long-term investment — GHG or AMZN or MSFT or H or AAPL?
Over the past 5 years, Apple Inc.
(AAPL) delivered a total return of +124. 4%, compared to -80. 0% for GreenTree Hospitality Group Ltd. (GHG). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: AAPL returned +1174% versus GHG's -75. 5%. 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 — GHG or AMZN or MSFT or H or AAPL?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), GreenTree Hospitality Group Ltd.
(GHG) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 58β versus Amazon. com, Inc. 's 1. 51β — meaning AMZN is approximately 160% more volatile than GHG relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 33% versus 152% for Apple Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — GHG or AMZN or MSFT or H or AAPL?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Hyatt Hotels Corporation (H) is pulling ahead at 117.
0% versus -88. 6% for GreenTree Hospitality Group Ltd. (GHG). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Amazon. com, Inc. grew EPS 29. 7% year-over-year, compared to -104. 3% for Hyatt Hotels Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, H leads at 29. 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 — GHG or AMZN or MSFT or H or AAPL?
Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) is the more profitable company, earning 36.
1% net margin versus -0. 7% for Hyatt Hotels Corporation — meaning it keeps 36. 1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: MSFT leads at 45. 6% versus 7. 8% for H. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — MSFT leads at 68. 8%, 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 GHG or AMZN or MSFT or H or AAPL 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, Amazon. com, Inc. (AMZN) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 24x versus Apple Inc. 's 1. 89x. A PEG below 1. 5 suggests fair-to-attractive pricing relative to expected growth. On forward earnings alone, GreenTree Hospitality Group Ltd. (GHG) trades at 0. 3x forward P/E versus 53. 0x for Hyatt Hotels Corporation — 52. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for GHG: 313. 2% to $5. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — GHG or AMZN or MSFT or H or AAPL?
In this comparison, GHG (5.
0% yield), MSFT (0. 8% yield), AAPL (0. 4% yield), H (0. 4% yield) pay a dividend. AMZN does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is GHG or AMZN or MSFT or H or AAPL better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
89), 0. 8% yield, +787. 7% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (MSFT: +787. 7%, H: +254. 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 GHG and AMZN and MSFT and H and AAPL?
These companies operate in different sectors (GHG (Consumer Cyclical) and AMZN (Consumer Cyclical) and MSFT (Technology) and H (Consumer Cyclical) and AAPL (Technology)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: GHG is a small-cap income-oriented stock; AMZN is a mega-cap quality compounder stock; MSFT is a mega-cap quality compounder stock; H is a mid-cap high-growth stock; AAPL is a mega-cap quality compounder stock. GHG, MSFT pay a dividend while AMZN, H, AAPL 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.