GOOS vs UAA

For growth investors, Canada Goose Holdings Inc.

(GOOS) is the stronger pick with 1. 1% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -9. 4% for Under Armour, Inc. (UAA). Canada Goose Holdings Inc. (GOOS) offers the better valuation at 16. 8x trailing P/E (14. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Canada Goose Holdings Inc. (GOOS) a "Hold" — based on 17 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 forward P/E, Canada Goose Holdings Inc.

is actually cheaper at 14. 9x.

Over the past 5 years, Canada Goose Holdings Inc.

(GOOS) delivered a total return of -72. 5%, compared to -73. 9% for Under Armour, Inc. (UAA). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: GOOS returned -25. 9% versus UAA's -83. 5%. 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), Canada Goose Holdings Inc.

(GOOS) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 32β versus Under Armour, Inc. 's 1. 36β — meaning UAA is approximately 3% more volatile than GOOS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Under Armour, Inc. (UAA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 69% versus 133% for Canada Goose Holdings Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Canada Goose Holdings Inc.

(GOOS) is pulling ahead at 1. 1% versus -9. 4% for Under Armour, Inc. (UAA). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Canada Goose Holdings Inc. grew EPS 70. 2% year-over-year, compared to -190. 4% for Under Armour, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, GOOS leads at 7. 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.

Canada Goose Holdings Inc.

(GOOS) is the more profitable company, earning 7. 0% net margin versus -3. 9% for Under Armour, Inc. — meaning it keeps 7. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: GOOS leads at 12. 2% versus -3. 6% for UAA. 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.

On forward earnings alone, Canada Goose Holdings Inc.

(GOOS) trades at 14. 9x forward P/E versus 55. 0x for Under Armour, Inc. — 40. 2x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for GOOS: 62. 3% to $19. 33.

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, Canada Goose Holdings Inc.

(GOOS) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding. Both have compounded well over 10 years (GOOS: -25. 9%, UAA: -83. 5%), 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.

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: GOOS is a small-cap deep-value stock; UAA is a small-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.