Packaged Foods
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
LFVN vs NATR vs USNA vs NUS
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Packaged Foods
Packaged Foods
Household & Personal Products
LFVN vs NATR vs USNA vs NUS — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Packaged Foods | Packaged Foods | Packaged Foods | Household & Personal Products |
| Market Cap | $64M | $430M | $359M | $345M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $195M | $490M | $925M | $1.49B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $6M | $20M | $11M | $160M |
| Gross Margin | 78.1% | 69.9% | 76.6% | 69.4% |
| Operating Margin | 3.4% | 5.7% | 5.5% | 4.4% |
| Forward P/E | 6.6x | 21.9x | 11.2x | 7.0x |
| Total Debt | $12M | $19M | $14M | $364M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $20M | $94M | $158M | $239M |
LFVN vs NATR vs USNA vs NUS — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| LifeVantage Corpora… (LFVN) | 100 | 32.8 | -67.2% |
| Nature's Sunshine P… (NATR) | 100 | 253.1 | +153.1% |
| USANA Health Scienc… (USNA) | 100 | 23.0 | -77.0% |
| Nu Skin Enterprises… (NUS) | 100 | 18.9 | -81.1% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: LFVN vs NATR vs USNA vs NUS
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
LFVN is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and growth exposure is your priority.
- Dividend streak 0 yrs, beta 1.12, yield 3.2%
- Rev growth 14.2%, EPS growth 230.4%, 3Y rev CAGR 3.5%
- 14.2% revenue growth vs NUS's -14.3%
- Lower P/E (6.6x vs 7.0x)
NATR is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding and sleep-well-at-night.
- 180.2% 10Y total return vs LFVN's -42.0%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.62, Low D/E 11.7%, current ratio 2.28x
- Beta 0.62, current ratio 2.28x
- Beta 0.62 vs NUS's 1.49, lower leverage
USNA lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
NUS carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for quality and dividends.
- 10.8% margin vs USNA's 1.2%
- 3.4% yield, vs LFVN's 3.2%, (2 stocks pay no dividend)
- 11.3% ROA vs USNA's 1.5%, ROIC 7.3% vs 8.6%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 14.2% revenue growth vs NUS's -14.3% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (6.6x vs 7.0x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 10.8% margin vs USNA's 1.2% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.62 vs NUS's 1.49, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 3.4% yield, vs LFVN's 3.2%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +85.3% vs LFVN's -53.5% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 11.3% ROA vs USNA's 1.5%, ROIC 7.3% vs 8.6% |
LFVN vs NATR vs USNA vs NUS — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
LFVN vs NATR vs USNA vs NUS — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
NATR leads in 3 of 6 categories
NUS leads 1 • LFVN leads 1 • USNA leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
NATR leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
NUS is the larger business by revenue, generating $1.5B annually — 7.6x LFVN's $195M. NUS is the more profitable business, keeping 10.8% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to USNA's 1.2%. On growth, NATR holds the edge at +8.5% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $195M | $490M | $925M | $1.5B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $9M | $38M | $91M | $118M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $6M | $20M | $11M | $160M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $4M | $23M | $9M | $46M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +78.1% | +69.9% | +76.6% | +69.4% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +3.4% | +5.7% | +5.5% | +4.4% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +2.9% | +4.1% | +1.2% | +10.8% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +1.9% | +4.7% | +0.9% | +3.1% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -25.2% | +8.5% | +5.9% | -16.9% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -57.7% | +16.0% | -142.2% | +139.7% |
Valuation Metrics
NUS leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 2.2x trailing earnings, NUS trades at a 93% valuation discount to USNA's 33.6x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, USNA's 2.4x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than NATR's 9.2x.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $64M | $430M | $359M | $345M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $56M | $355M | $215M | $471M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 6.61x | 23.16x | 33.55x | 2.21x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 21.92x | 11.18x | 7.02x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 3.63x | 9.20x | 2.37x | 3.29x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.28x | 0.90x | 0.39x | 0.23x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.88x | 2.81x | 0.62x | 0.44x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 6.12x | 14.90x | 42.13x | 7.50x |
Profitability & Efficiency
LFVN leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
NUS delivers a 20.4% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $20 in annual profit, vs $2 for USNA. USNA carries lower financial leverage with a 0.02x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to NUS's 0.45x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), LFVN scores 7/9 vs NATR's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +17.8% | +12.1% | +1.8% | +20.4% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +9.1% | +7.6% | +1.5% | +11.3% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +37.5% | +21.0% | +8.6% | +7.3% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +29.5% | +13.8% | +8.3% | +7.9% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.34x | 0.12x | 0.02x | 0.45x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$9M | -$75M | -$144M | $126M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $20M | $94M | $158M | $239M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $12M | $19M | $14M | $364M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | 1100.81x | 50.32x | 15.14x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
NATR leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in NATR five years ago would be worth $11,883 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $1,999 for USNA. Over the past 12 months, NATR leads with a +85.3% total return vs LFVN's -53.5%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors NATR at 31.8% vs NUS's -38.9% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -16.0% | +17.1% | +0.1% | -26.9% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -53.5% | +85.3% | -31.4% | +26.3% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +53.2% | +129.0% | -70.7% | -77.1% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -19.4% | +18.8% | -80.0% | -80.0% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -42.0% | +180.2% | -68.7% | -48.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +15.3% | +31.8% | -33.6% | -38.9% |
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 NUS's 1.49 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. NATR currently trades 87.2% from its 52-week high vs LFVN's 33.5% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.12x | 0.62x | 1.34x | 1.49x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $15.00 | $28.14 | $38.32 | $14.62 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $3.90 | $12.90 | $16.60 | $5.65 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +33.5% | +87.2% | +50.8% | +48.0% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 68.9 | 49.6 | 59.0 | 46.4 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 162K | 103K | 118K | 458K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — NATR and NUS each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: NATR as "Buy", USNA as "Hold", NUS as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 79.9% upside for USNA (target: $35) vs -20.6% for NATR (target: $20). For income investors, NUS offers the higher dividend yield at 3.35% vs LFVN's 3.17%.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Hold | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $19.50 | $35.00 | $11.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 4 | 8 | 11 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +3.2% | — | — | +3.4% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 1 | — | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.16 | — | — | $0.24 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +9.0% | +3.8% | +7.7% | +5.8% |
NATR leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Total Returns). NUS leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 1 tied.
LFVN vs NATR vs USNA vs NUS: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is LFVN or NATR or USNA or NUS a better buy right now?
For growth investors, LifeVantage Corporation (LFVN) is the stronger pick with 14.
2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -14. 3% for Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. (NUS). Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. (NUS) offers the better valuation at 2. 2x trailing P/E (7. 0x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc. (NATR) a "Buy" — based on 4 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 — LFVN or NATR or USNA or NUS?
On trailing P/E, Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc.
(NUS) is the cheapest at 2. 2x versus USANA Health Sciences, Inc. at 33. 6x. On forward P/E, Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. is actually cheaper at 7. 0x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — LFVN or NATR or USNA or NUS?
Over the past 5 years, Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc.
(NATR) delivered a total return of +18. 8%, compared to -80. 0% for USANA Health Sciences, Inc. (USNA). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: NATR returned +180. 2% versus USNA's -68. 7%. 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 — LFVN or NATR or USNA or NUS?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc.
(NATR) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 62β versus Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. 's 1. 49β — meaning NUS is approximately 139% 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 45% for Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — LFVN or NATR or USNA or NUS?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), LifeVantage Corporation (LFVN) is pulling ahead at 14.
2% versus -14. 3% for Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. (NUS). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: LifeVantage Corporation grew EPS 230. 4% year-over-year, compared to -73. 5% for USANA Health Sciences, 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 — LFVN or NATR or USNA or NUS?
Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc.
(NUS) is the more profitable company, earning 10. 8% net margin versus 1. 2% for USANA Health Sciences, Inc. — meaning it keeps 10. 8% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: NUS leads at 6. 1% versus 5. 2% for NATR. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — LFVN leads at 80. 4%, 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 LFVN or NATR or USNA or NUS more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc.
(NUS) trades at 7. 0x forward P/E versus 21. 9x for Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc. — 14. 9x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for USNA: 79. 9% to $35. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — LFVN or NATR or USNA or NUS?
In this comparison, NUS (3.
4% yield), LFVN (3. 2% yield) pay a dividend. NATR, USNA do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is LFVN or NATR or USNA or NUS better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc.
(NATR) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 62), +180. 2% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (NATR: +180. 2%, USNA: -68. 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 LFVN and NATR and USNA and NUS?
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: LFVN is a small-cap deep-value stock; NATR is a small-cap quality compounder stock; USNA is a small-cap quality compounder stock; NUS is a small-cap deep-value stock. LFVN, NUS pay a dividend while NATR, USNA 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.