Packaged Foods
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
HLF vs NUS vs USNA vs NATR vs MGPI
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Household & Personal Products
Packaged Foods
Packaged Foods
Beverages - Wineries & Distilleries
HLF vs NUS vs USNA vs NATR vs MGPI — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Packaged Foods | Household & Personal Products | Packaged Foods | Packaged Foods | Beverages - Wineries & Distilleries |
| Market Cap | $1.70B | $354M | $369M | $459M | $413M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $5.13B | $1.56B | $925M | $480M | $521M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $240M | $110M | $11M | $20M | $-240M |
| Gross Margin | 76.5% | 67.2% | 76.6% | 69.5% | 36.4% |
| Operating Margin | 6.4% | -0.7% | 5.5% | 5.2% | -51.2% |
| Forward P/E | 6.4x | 7.3x | 11.5x | 23.4x | 12.2x |
| Total Debt | $2.34B | $282M | $14M | $19M | $267M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $353M | $239M | $158M | $94M | $18M |
HLF vs NUS vs USNA vs NATR vs MGPI — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Herbalife Nutrition… (HLF) | 100 | 37.5 | -62.5% |
| Nu Skin Enterprises… (NUS) | 100 | 19.7 | -80.3% |
| USANA Health Scienc… (USNA) | 100 | 23.6 | -76.4% |
| Nature's Sunshine P… (NATR) | 100 | 270.5 | +170.5% |
| MGP Ingredients, In… (MGPI) | 100 | 51.5 | -48.5% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: HLF vs NUS vs USNA vs NATR vs MGPI
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
HLF carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for value and momentum.
- Lower P/E (6.4x vs 23.4x)
- +139.7% vs MGPI's -38.3%
- 8.6% ROA vs MGPI's -19.1%, ROIC 24.3% vs -6.7%
NUS is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if quality and dividends is your priority.
- 7.0% margin vs MGPI's -46.0%
- 3.2% yield, vs MGPI's 2.5%, (3 stocks pay no dividend)
USNA ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth.
- 8.3% revenue growth vs MGPI's -23.8%
NATR is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 5.7%, EPS growth 165.0%, 3Y rev CAGR 4.4%
- 195.6% 10Y total return vs MGPI's -12.7%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.62, Low D/E 11.7%, current ratio 2.28x
- Beta 0.62 vs HLF's 1.79
MGPI is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and defensive.
- Dividend streak 2 yrs, beta 0.63, yield 2.5%
- Beta 0.63, yield 2.5%, current ratio 2.61x
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 8.3% revenue growth vs MGPI's -23.8% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (6.4x vs 23.4x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 7.0% margin vs MGPI's -46.0% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.62 vs HLF's 1.79 | |
| Dividends | 3.2% yield, vs MGPI's 2.5%, (3 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +139.7% vs MGPI's -38.3% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 8.6% ROA vs MGPI's -19.1%, ROIC 24.3% vs -6.7% |
HLF vs NUS vs USNA vs NATR vs MGPI — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
HLF vs NUS vs USNA vs NATR vs MGPI — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
NATR leads in 2 of 6 categories
HLF leads 1 • USNA leads 1 • NUS leads 0 • MGPI leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
HLF leads this category, winning 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
HLF is the larger business by revenue, generating $5.1B annually — 10.7x NATR's $480M. NUS is the more profitable business, keeping 7.0% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to MGPI's -46.0%. On growth, HLF holds the edge at +7.8% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $5.1B | $1.6B | $925M | $480M | $521M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $417M | $45M | $91M | $39M | -$249M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $240M | $110M | $11M | $20M | -$240M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $374M | $53M | $9M | $29M | $54M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +76.5% | +67.2% | +76.6% | +69.5% | +36.4% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +6.4% | -0.7% | +5.5% | +5.2% | -51.2% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +4.7% | +7.0% | +1.2% | +4.1% | -46.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +7.3% | +3.4% | +0.9% | +6.0% | +10.4% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +7.8% | -15.3% | +5.9% | +4.7% | -12.5% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +16.3% | +100.0% | -142.2% | +14.5% | -44.0% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — NUS and MGPI each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 2.3x trailing earnings, NUS trades at a 93% valuation discount to USNA's 34.5x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, USNA's 2.5x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than NATR's 10.0x.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1.7B | $354M | $369M | $459M | $413M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $3.7B | $397M | $225M | $384M | $661M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 7.47x | 2.31x | 34.50x | 24.75x | -3.87x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 6.39x | 7.34x | 11.50x | 23.42x | 12.24x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 6.55x | 6.04x | 2.48x | 9.96x | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.34x | 0.24x | 0.40x | 0.96x | 0.77x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | — | 0.46x | 0.63x | 3.00x | 0.58x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 6.72x | 7.69x | 43.32x | 15.93x | 5.43x |
Profitability & Efficiency
USNA leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
NUS delivers a 13.7% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $14 in annual profit, vs $-32 for MGPI. USNA carries lower financial leverage with a 0.02x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to MGPI's 0.37x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), USNA scores 7/9 vs MGPI's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | — | +13.7% | +1.8% | +11.8% | -32.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +8.6% | +7.7% | +1.5% | +7.6% | -19.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +24.3% | +5.5% | +8.6% | +21.0% | -6.7% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +27.0% | +5.7% | +8.3% | +13.8% | -8.1% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 0.35x | 0.02x | 0.12x | 0.37x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $2.0B | $43M | -$144M | -$75M | $248M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $353M | $239M | $158M | $94M | $18M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $2.3B | $282M | $14M | $19M | $267M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 1.64x | 8.60x | 50.32x | 343.65x | -40.23x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
NATR leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in NATR five years ago would be worth $12,559 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $2,032 for USNA. Over the past 12 months, HLF leads with a +139.7% total return vs MGPI's -38.3%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors NATR at 34.8% vs MGPI's -41.1% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +28.2% | -23.6% | +2.9% | +25.1% | -19.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +139.7% | +31.1% | -29.7% | +111.4% | -38.3% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +16.9% | -76.3% | -69.9% | +144.7% | -79.5% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -66.9% | -79.2% | -79.7% | +25.6% | -64.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -48.3% | -49.1% | -67.9% | +195.6% | -12.7% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +5.4% | -38.1% | -33.0% | +34.8% | -41.1% |
Risk & Volatility
NATR leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
NATR is the less volatile stock with a 0.62 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than HLF's 1.79 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. NATR currently trades 93.2% from its 52-week high vs NUS's 50.2% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.79x | 1.49x | 1.34x | 0.62x | 0.63x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $20.40 | $14.62 | $38.32 | $28.14 | $34.99 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $6.59 | $5.63 | $16.60 | $12.24 | $16.45 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +80.6% | +50.2% | +52.2% | +93.2% | +55.2% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 51.9 | 46.1 | 53.5 | 46.1 | 53.9 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.1M | 458K | 118K | 104K | 302K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — NUS and MGPI each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: HLF as "Buy", NUS as "Hold", USNA as "Hold", NATR as "Buy", MGPI as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 74.9% upside for USNA (target: $35) vs -25.7% for NATR (target: $20). For income investors, NUS offers the higher dividend yield at 3.21% vs MGPI's 2.50%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Hold | Hold | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $16.00 | $11.00 | $35.00 | $19.50 | $29.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 26 | 11 | 8 | 4 | 14 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +3.2% | — | — | +2.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 0 | — | 1 | 2 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $0.24 | — | — | $0.48 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.5% | +5.7% | +7.4% | +3.6% | +0.3% |
NATR leads in 2 of 6 categories (Total Returns, Risk & Volatility). HLF leads in 1 (Income & Cash Flow). 2 tied.
HLF vs NUS vs USNA vs NATR vs MGPI: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is HLF or NUS or USNA or NATR or MGPI a better buy right now?
For growth investors, USANA Health Sciences, Inc.
(USNA) is the stronger pick with 8. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -23. 8% for MGP Ingredients, Inc. (MGPI). Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. (NUS) offers the better valuation at 2. 3x trailing P/E (7. 3x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. (HLF) a "Buy" — based on 26 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 — HLF or NUS or USNA or NATR or MGPI?
On trailing P/E, Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc.
(NUS) is the cheapest at 2. 3x versus USANA Health Sciences, Inc. at 34. 5x. On forward P/E, Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. is actually cheaper at 6. 4x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — HLF or NUS or USNA or NATR or MGPI?
Over the past 5 years, Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc.
(NATR) delivered a total return of +25. 6%, compared to -79. 7% for USANA Health Sciences, Inc. (USNA). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: NATR returned +195. 6% versus USNA's -67. 9%. 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 — HLF or NUS or USNA or NATR or MGPI?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc.
(NATR) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 62β versus Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. 's 1. 79β — meaning HLF is approximately 188% more volatile than NATR relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, USANA Health Sciences, Inc. (USNA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 2% versus 37% for MGP Ingredients, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — HLF or NUS or USNA or NATR or MGPI?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), USANA Health Sciences, Inc.
(USNA) is pulling ahead at 8. 3% versus -23. 8% for MGP Ingredients, Inc. (MGPI). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. grew EPS 207. 8% year-over-year, compared to -419. 9% for MGP Ingredients, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, NATR leads at 4. 4% 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 — HLF or NUS or USNA or NATR or MGPI?
Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc.
(NUS) is the more profitable company, earning 10. 8% net margin versus -20. 1% for MGP Ingredients, Inc. — meaning it keeps 10. 8% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: HLF leads at 8. 8% versus -17. 6% for MGPI. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — USNA leads at 78. 3%, 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 HLF or NUS or USNA or NATR or MGPI more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Herbalife Nutrition Ltd.
(HLF) trades at 6. 4x forward P/E versus 23. 4x for Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc. — 17. 0x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for USNA: 74. 9% to $35. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — HLF or NUS or USNA or NATR or MGPI?
In this comparison, NUS (3.
2% yield), MGPI (2. 5% yield) pay a dividend. HLF, USNA, NATR do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is HLF or NUS or USNA or NATR or MGPI better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, MGP Ingredients, Inc.
(MGPI) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 63), 2. 5% yield). Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. (HLF) carries a higher beta of 1. 79 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (MGPI: -12. 7%, HLF: -48. 3%), 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 HLF and NUS and USNA and NATR and MGPI?
Both stocks operate in the Consumer Defensive sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
In terms of investment character: HLF is a small-cap deep-value stock; NUS is a small-cap deep-value stock; USNA is a small-cap quality compounder stock; NATR is a small-cap quality compounder stock; MGPI is a small-cap quality compounder stock. NUS, MGPI pay a dividend while HLF, USNA, NATR 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.