Agricultural - Machinery
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
HYFM vs SMG vs GRWG vs IIPR vs TLRY
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Agricultural Inputs
Specialty Retail
REIT - Industrial
Drug Manufacturers - Specialty & Generic
HYFM vs SMG vs GRWG vs IIPR vs TLRY — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Agricultural - Machinery | Agricultural Inputs | Specialty Retail | REIT - Industrial | Drug Manufacturers - Specialty & Generic |
| Market Cap | $5M | $3.62B | $85M | $1.62B | $660M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $146M | $3.35B | $162M | $263M | $1.17B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-65M | $90M | $-24M | $120M | $-2.95B |
| Gross Margin | 10.2% | 31.0% | 26.8% | 60.3% | 28.0% |
| Operating Margin | -35.8% | 11.7% | -15.7% | 46.7% | -266.0% |
| Forward P/E | — | 14.2x | — | 13.2x | — |
| Total Debt | $170M | $2.38B | $29M | $394M | $451M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $26M | $37M | $30M | $48M | $304M |
HYFM vs SMG vs GRWG vs IIPR vs TLRY — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Dec 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hydrofarm Holdings … (HYFM) | 100 | 0.2 | -99.8% |
| The Scotts Miracle-… (SMG) | 100 | 31.3 | -68.7% |
| GrowGeneration Corp. (GRWG) | 100 | 3.5 | -96.5% |
| Innovative Industri… (IIPR) | 100 | 30.9 | -69.1% |
| Tilray Brands, Inc. (TLRY) | 100 | 68.5 | -31.5% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: HYFM vs SMG vs GRWG vs IIPR vs TLRY
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
HYFM ranks third and is worth considering specifically for sleep-well-at-night.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.91, Low D/E 75.8%, current ratio 2.72x
- Beta 0.91 vs TLRY's 2.03
SMG is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth -3.9%, EPS growth 5.0%, 3Y rev CAGR -4.5%
Among these 5 stocks, GRWG doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
IIPR carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and long-term compounding.
- Dividend streak 9 yrs, beta 0.92, yield 13.5%
- 436.4% 10Y total return vs SMG's 34.9%
- Beta 0.92, yield 13.5%, current ratio 0.15x
- Better valuation composite
TLRY is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth and momentum is your priority.
- 4.8% revenue growth vs HYFM's -16.0%
- +12.1% vs HYFM's -75.4%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 4.8% revenue growth vs HYFM's -16.0% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 45.6% margin vs TLRY's -252.6% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.91 vs TLRY's 2.03 | |
| Dividends | 13.5% yield, 9-year raise streak, vs SMG's 4.2%, (3 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +12.1% vs HYFM's -75.4% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 5.1% ROA vs TLRY's -100.6%, ROIC 4.3% vs -66.2% |
HYFM vs SMG vs GRWG vs IIPR vs TLRY — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
HYFM vs SMG vs GRWG vs IIPR vs TLRY — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
IIPR leads in 4 of 6 categories
HYFM leads 0 • SMG leads 0 • GRWG leads 0 • TLRY leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
IIPR leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
SMG is the larger business by revenue, generating $3.4B annually — 22.9x HYFM's $146M. IIPR is the more profitable business, keeping 45.6% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to TLRY's -2.5%. On growth, TLRY holds the edge at +3.0% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $146M | $3.4B | $162M | $263M | $1.2B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$23M | $466M | -$14M | $197M | -$3.0B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$65M | $90M | -$24M | $120M | -$2.9B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$8M | $358M | -$10M | $144M | -$94M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +10.2% | +31.0% | +26.8% | +60.3% | +28.0% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -35.8% | +11.7% | -15.7% | +46.7% | -2.7% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -44.5% | +2.7% | -14.9% | +45.6% | -2.5% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -5.7% | +10.7% | -6.2% | +54.7% | -8.1% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -33.3% | -15.0% | +1.0% | -3.8% | +3.0% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -22.7% | -78.5% | +69.2% | -1.0% | +70.7% |
Valuation Metrics
IIPR leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 14.4x trailing earnings, IIPR trades at a 43% valuation discount to SMG's 25.3x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, IIPR's 9.9x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than SMG's 13.8x.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $5M | $3.6B | $85M | $1.6B | $660M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $148M | $6.0B | $84M | $2.0B | $806M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.07x | 25.25x | -3.55x | 14.40x | -0.17x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 14.23x | — | 13.17x | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | 3.85x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 13.75x | — | 9.91x | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.03x | 1.06x | 0.53x | 6.08x | 0.59x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.02x | — | 0.87x | 0.87x | 0.25x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 13.22x | — | 9.26x | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
IIPR leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
IIPR delivers a 6.4% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $6 in annual profit, vs $-137 for TLRY. IIPR carries lower financial leverage with a 0.21x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to HYFM's 0.76x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), SMG scores 7/9 vs HYFM's 3/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -32.3% | — | -22.9% | +6.4% | -136.5% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -16.3% | +2.9% | -15.2% | +5.1% | -100.6% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -9.6% | +13.3% | -16.9% | +4.3% | -66.2% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -12.1% | +17.4% | -18.8% | +5.8% | -78.1% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 7 | 6 | 4 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.76x | — | 0.30x | 0.21x | 0.22x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $143M | $2.3B | -$929,000 | $346M | $147M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $26M | $37M | $30M | $48M | $304M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $170M | $2.4B | $29M | $394M | $451M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -3.77x | 3.08x | — | 6.67x | -89.43x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — IIPR and TLRY each lead in 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in IIPR five years ago would be worth $4,999 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $16 for HYFM. Over the past 12 months, TLRY leads with a +1209.3% total return vs HYFM's -75.4%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors TLRY at 26.7% vs HYFM's -56.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -35.0% | +6.1% | -7.8% | +18.3% | -41.8% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -75.4% | +20.7% | +25.7% | +20.3% | +1209.3% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -91.9% | -3.2% | -62.0% | +14.1% | +103.6% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.8% | -69.1% | -96.7% | -50.0% | -65.0% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.8% | +34.9% | -75.7% | +436.4% | -74.7% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -56.8% | -1.1% | -27.6% | +4.5% | +26.7% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — HYFM and IIPR each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
HYFM is the less volatile stock with a 0.91 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than TLRY's 2.03 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. IIPR currently trades 92.2% from its 52-week high vs HYFM's 21.8% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.91x | 1.10x | 1.27x | 0.92x | 2.03x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $4.78 | $72.35 | $2.40 | $61.40 | $15.70 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.81 | $52.00 | $0.87 | $44.58 | $0.35 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +21.8% | +86.2% | +59.2% | +92.2% | +36.1% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 54.8 | 48.9 | 63.2 | 59.3 | 37.9 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 41K | 938K | 476K | 303K | 4.7M |
Analyst Outlook
IIPR leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: SMG as "Buy", IIPR as "Hold", TLRY as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 76.7% upside for TLRY (target: $10) vs -22.3% for IIPR (target: $44). For income investors, IIPR offers the higher dividend yield at 13.46% vs SMG's 4.21%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | — | Hold | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $72.00 | — | $44.00 | $10.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 17 | — | 11 | 20 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +4.2% | — | +13.5% | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 1 | 0 | — | 9 | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $2.63 | — | $7.62 | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +0.5% | 0.0% | +1.2% | 0.0% |
IIPR leads in 4 of 6 categories — strongest in Income & Cash Flow and Valuation Metrics. 2 categories are tied.
HYFM vs SMG vs GRWG vs IIPR vs TLRY: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is HYFM or SMG or GRWG or IIPR or TLRY a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Tilray Brands, Inc.
(TLRY) is the stronger pick with 4. 8% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -16. 0% for Hydrofarm Holdings Group, Inc. (HYFM). Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. (IIPR) offers the better valuation at 14. 4x trailing P/E (13. 2x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company (SMG) a "Buy" — 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.
02Which has the better valuation — HYFM or SMG or GRWG or IIPR or TLRY?
On trailing P/E, Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc.
(IIPR) is the cheapest at 14. 4x versus The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company at 25. 3x. On forward P/E, Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. is actually cheaper at 13. 2x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — HYFM or SMG or GRWG or IIPR or TLRY?
Over the past 5 years, Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc.
(IIPR) delivered a total return of -50. 0%, compared to -99. 8% for Hydrofarm Holdings Group, Inc. (HYFM). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: IIPR returned +436. 4% versus HYFM's -99. 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 — HYFM or SMG or GRWG or IIPR or TLRY?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Hydrofarm Holdings Group, Inc.
(HYFM) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 91β versus Tilray Brands, Inc. 's 2. 03β — meaning TLRY is approximately 122% more volatile than HYFM relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. (IIPR) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 21% versus 76% for Hydrofarm Holdings Group, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — HYFM or SMG or GRWG or IIPR or TLRY?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Tilray Brands, Inc.
(TLRY) is pulling ahead at 4. 8% versus -16. 0% for Hydrofarm Holdings Group, Inc. (HYFM). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company grew EPS 504. 9% year-over-year, compared to -651. 7% for Tilray Brands, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, TLRY leads at 12. 5% 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 — HYFM or SMG or GRWG or IIPR or TLRY?
Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc.
(IIPR) is the more profitable company, earning 43. 0% net margin versus -266. 3% for Tilray Brands, Inc. — meaning it keeps 43. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: IIPR leads at 46. 7% versus -277. 9% for TLRY. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — IIPR leads at 88. 7%, 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 HYFM or SMG or GRWG or IIPR or TLRY more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc.
(IIPR) trades at 13. 2x forward P/E versus 14. 2x for The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company — 1. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for TLRY: 76. 7% to $10. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — HYFM or SMG or GRWG or IIPR or TLRY?
In this comparison, IIPR (13.
5% yield), SMG (4. 2% yield) pay a dividend. HYFM, GRWG, TLRY do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is HYFM or SMG or GRWG or IIPR or TLRY better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc.
(IIPR) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 92), 13. 5% yield, +436. 4% 10Y return). Tilray Brands, Inc. (TLRY) carries a higher beta of 2. 03 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (IIPR: +436. 4%, TLRY: -74. 7%), 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 HYFM and SMG and GRWG and IIPR and TLRY?
These companies operate in different sectors (HYFM (Industrials) and SMG (Basic Materials) and GRWG (Consumer Cyclical) and IIPR (Real Estate) and TLRY (Healthcare)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: HYFM is a small-cap quality compounder stock; SMG is a small-cap income-oriented stock; GRWG is a small-cap quality compounder stock; IIPR is a small-cap deep-value stock; TLRY is a small-cap quality compounder stock. SMG, IIPR pay a dividend while HYFM, GRWG, TLRY 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.