Education & Training Services
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
KLC vs LRN vs LOCO vs BFAM vs LAUR
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Education & Training Services
Restaurants
Personal Products & Services
Education & Training Services
KLC vs LRN vs LOCO vs BFAM vs LAUR — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Education & Training Services | Education & Training Services | Restaurants | Personal Products & Services | Education & Training Services |
| Market Cap | $463M | $3.90B | $405M | $3.74B | $4.59B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $2.73B | $2.54B | $490M | $2.98B | $1.74B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-113M | $308M | $26M | $227M | $280M |
| Gross Margin | 17.1% | 38.3% | 28.6% | 23.6% | 26.9% |
| Operating Margin | -0.7% | 15.8% | 8.7% | 10.7% | 24.0% |
| Forward P/E | 5.9x | 13.0x | 13.9x | 13.6x | 15.3x |
| Total Debt | $1.60B | $550M | $240M | $1.76B | $847M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $133M | $782M | $6M | $141M | $147M |
KLC vs LRN vs LOCO vs BFAM vs LAUR — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Oct 24 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| KinderCare Learning… (KLC) | 100 | 13.4 | -86.6% |
| Stride, Inc. (LRN) | 100 | 98.3 | -1.7% |
| El Pollo Loco Holdi… (LOCO) | 100 | 110.6 | +10.6% |
| Bright Horizons Fam… (BFAM) | 100 | 51.2 | -48.8% |
| Laureate Education,… (LAUR) | 100 | 187.3 | +87.3% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: KLC vs LRN vs LOCO vs BFAM vs LAUR
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
KLC is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if value is your priority.
- Lower P/E (5.9x vs 15.3x)
LRN has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 1 yrs, beta 0.46
- Rev growth 17.9%, EPS growth 26.9%, 3Y rev CAGR 12.6%
- 6.7% 10Y total return vs LAUR's 216.8%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.46, Low D/E 37.2%, current ratio 5.39x
LOCO ranks third and is worth considering specifically for momentum.
- +52.1% vs KLC's -70.2%
BFAM is the clearest fit if your priority is stability.
- Beta 0.27 vs KLC's 2.02, lower leverage
LAUR is the clearest fit if your priority is quality.
- 16.1% margin vs KLC's -4.1%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 17.9% revenue growth vs KLC's 2.6% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (5.9x vs 15.3x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 16.1% margin vs KLC's -4.1% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.27 vs KLC's 2.02, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | Tie | None of these 5 stocks pay a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +52.1% vs KLC's -70.2% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 13.1% ROA vs KLC's -3.0%, ROIC 22.0% vs -0.6% |
KLC vs LRN vs LOCO vs BFAM vs LAUR — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
KLC vs LRN vs LOCO vs BFAM vs LAUR — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
LRN leads in 2 of 6 categories
LAUR leads 1 • KLC leads 1 • LOCO leads 0 • BFAM leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
LAUR leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
BFAM is the larger business by revenue, generating $3.0B annually — 6.1x LOCO's $490M. LAUR is the more profitable business, keeping 16.1% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to KLC's -4.1%. On growth, LAUR holds the edge at +15.4% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $2.7B | $2.5B | $490M | $3.0B | $1.7B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $104M | $525M | $58M | $412M | $535M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$113M | $308M | $26M | $227M | $280M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $110M | $400M | $25M | $273M | $264M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +17.1% | +38.3% | +28.6% | +23.6% | +26.9% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -0.7% | +15.8% | +8.7% | +10.7% | +24.0% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -4.1% | +12.2% | +5.4% | +7.6% | +16.1% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +4.0% | +15.8% | +5.2% | +9.2% | +15.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +6.4% | +2.7% | +8.1% | +7.0% | +15.4% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -28.2% | -7.4% | +10.0% | -6.1% | -15.4% |
Valuation Metrics
KLC leads this category, winning 5 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 15.0x trailing earnings, LOCO trades at a 26% valuation discount to BFAM's 20.3x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), LRN offers better value at 0.26x vs LOCO's 2.60x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $463M | $3.9B | $405M | $3.7B | $4.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $1.9B | $3.7B | $638M | $5.4B | $5.3B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -4.12x | 15.41x | 15.01x | 20.33x | 17.02x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 5.86x | 13.02x | 13.93x | 13.56x | 15.26x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 0.26x | 2.60x | 0.41x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 18.60x | 7.73x | 10.92x | 13.13x | 9.77x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.17x | 1.62x | 0.83x | 1.27x | 2.70x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.61x | 3.00x | 1.37x | 2.93x | 4.02x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 4.19x | 10.47x | 15.91x | 14.57x | 17.45x |
Profitability & Efficiency
LRN leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
LAUR delivers a 25.4% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $25 in annual profit, vs $-13 for KLC. LRN carries lower financial leverage with a 0.37x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to KLC's 2.12x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), LOCO scores 8/9 vs KLC's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -12.9% | +19.9% | +9.5% | +17.1% | +25.4% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -3.0% | +13.1% | +4.4% | +5.8% | +12.9% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -0.6% | +22.0% | +6.1% | +8.0% | +20.3% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -0.6% | +19.6% | +8.1% | +10.1% | +26.7% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 2.12x | 0.37x | 0.82x | 1.31x | 0.71x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $1.5B | -$233M | $233M | $1.6B | $701M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $133M | $782M | $6M | $141M | $147M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $1.6B | $550M | $240M | $1.8B | $847M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 1.82x | 36.09x | 9.67x | 6.83x | 34.91x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
LRN leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in LRN five years ago would be worth $32,308 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $1,498 for KLC. Over the past 12 months, LOCO leads with a +52.1% total return vs KLC's -70.2%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors LAUR at 40.1% vs KLC's -46.9% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -5.9% | +41.9% | +30.9% | -31.2% | -3.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -70.2% | -42.3% | +52.1% | -44.6% | +40.7% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -85.0% | +122.2% | +49.1% | -25.5% | +175.1% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -85.0% | +223.1% | -15.4% | -49.8% | +200.4% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -85.0% | +666.0% | +28.2% | +3.9% | +216.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -46.9% | +30.5% | +14.2% | -9.3% | +40.1% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — LOCO and BFAM each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
BFAM is the less volatile stock with a 0.27 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than KLC's 2.02 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. LOCO currently trades 93.2% from its 52-week high vs KLC's 28.2% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 2.02x | 0.46x | 0.83x | 0.27x | 0.59x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $13.88 | $171.17 | $14.50 | $132.99 | $37.91 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $1.75 | $60.61 | $8.82 | $63.68 | $21.16 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +28.2% | +53.6% | +93.2% | +51.4% | +84.9% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 72.0 | 49.4 | 47.5 | 20.6 | 49.6 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.4M | 744K | 321K | 779K | 1.9M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — KLC and LRN and LOCO each lead in 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: KLC as "Hold", LRN as "Hold", LOCO as "Hold", BFAM as "Hold", LAUR as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 39.9% upside for BFAM (target: $96) vs -10.6% for KLC (target: $4).
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Hold | Hold | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $3.50 | $109.50 | $12.25 | $95.57 | $39.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 7 | 17 | 12 | 20 | 11 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | — | +0.0% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 1 | 1 | 1 | — | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | — | $0.00 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +0.5% | +0.5% | +6.0% | +4.7% |
LRN leads in 2 of 6 categories (Profitability & Efficiency, Total Returns). LAUR leads in 1 (Income & Cash Flow). 2 tied.
KLC vs LRN vs LOCO vs BFAM vs LAUR: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is KLC or LRN or LOCO or BFAM or LAUR a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Stride, Inc.
(LRN) is the stronger pick with 17. 9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 2. 6% for KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc. (KLC). El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. (LOCO) offers the better valuation at 15. 0x trailing P/E (13. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Laureate Education, Inc. (LAUR) a "Buy" — based on 11 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 — KLC or LRN or LOCO or BFAM or LAUR?
On trailing P/E, El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc.
(LOCO) is the cheapest at 15. 0x versus Bright Horizons Family Solutions Inc. at 20. 3x. On forward P/E, KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc. is actually cheaper at 5. 9x — 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: Stride, Inc. wins at 0. 22x versus El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. 's 2. 42x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — KLC or LRN or LOCO or BFAM or LAUR?
Over the past 5 years, Stride, Inc.
(LRN) delivered a total return of +223. 1%, compared to -85. 0% for KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc. (KLC). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: LRN returned +666. 0% versus KLC's -85. 0%. 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 — KLC or LRN or LOCO or BFAM or LAUR?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Bright Horizons Family Solutions Inc.
(BFAM) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 27β versus KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc. 's 2. 02β — meaning KLC is approximately 654% more volatile than BFAM relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Stride, Inc. (LRN) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 37% versus 2% for KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — KLC or LRN or LOCO or BFAM or LAUR?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Stride, Inc.
(LRN) is pulling ahead at 17. 9% versus 2. 6% for KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc. (KLC). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Bright Horizons Family Solutions Inc. grew EPS 40. 0% year-over-year, compared to -1. 6% for Laureate Education, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, BFAM leads at 13. 2% 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 — KLC or LRN or LOCO or BFAM or LAUR?
Laureate Education, Inc.
(LAUR) is the more profitable company, earning 16. 5% net margin versus -4. 1% for KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc. — meaning it keeps 16. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: LAUR leads at 25. 3% versus -0. 7% for KLC. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — LRN leads at 39. 2%, 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 KLC or LRN or LOCO or BFAM or LAUR 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, Stride, Inc. (LRN) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 22x versus El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. 's 2. 42x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc. (KLC) trades at 5. 9x forward P/E versus 15. 3x for Laureate Education, Inc. — 9. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for BFAM: 39. 9% to $95. 57.
08Which pays a better dividend — KLC or LRN or LOCO or BFAM or LAUR?
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.
09Is KLC or LRN or LOCO or BFAM or LAUR better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Stride, Inc.
(LRN) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 46), +666. 0% 10Y return). KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc. (KLC) carries a higher beta of 2. 02 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (LRN: +666. 0%, KLC: -85. 0%), 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 KLC and LRN and LOCO and BFAM and LAUR?
These companies operate in different sectors (KLC (Consumer Defensive) and LRN (Consumer Defensive) and LOCO (Consumer Cyclical) and BFAM (Consumer Cyclical) and LAUR (Consumer Defensive)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: KLC is a small-cap quality compounder stock; LRN is a small-cap high-growth stock; LOCO is a small-cap deep-value stock; BFAM is a small-cap quality compounder stock; LAUR is a small-cap deep-value 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.
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.