Packaged Foods
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
LFVN vs QNST vs TREE vs NATR
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Advertising Agencies
Financial - Conglomerates
Packaged Foods
LFVN vs QNST vs TREE vs NATR — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Packaged Foods | Advertising Agencies | Financial - Conglomerates | Packaged Foods |
| Market Cap | $64M | $761M | $552M | $430M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $195M | $1.18B | $1.12B | $490M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $6M | $-30M | $181M | $20M |
| Gross Margin | 78.1% | 10.5% | 94.3% | 69.9% |
| Operating Margin | 3.4% | 1.7% | 7.3% | 5.7% |
| Forward P/E | 6.6x | 10.5x | 7.1x | 21.9x |
| Total Debt | $12M | $10M | $435M | $19M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $20M | $101M | $81M | $94M |
LFVN vs QNST vs TREE vs NATR — 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% |
| QuinStreet, Inc. (QNST) | 100 | 131.8 | +31.8% |
| LendingTree, Inc. (TREE) | 100 | 15.3 | -84.7% |
| Nature's Sunshine P… (NATR) | 100 | 253.1 | +153.1% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: LFVN vs QNST vs TREE vs NATR
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
LFVN has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in value and dividends.
- Lower P/E (6.6x vs 21.9x)
- 3.2% yield; the other 3 pay no meaningful dividend
QNST is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth 78.3%, EPS growth 114.2%, 3Y rev CAGR 23.4%
- 78.3% revenue growth vs NATR's 5.7%
TREE is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if quality and efficiency is your priority.
- 13.5% margin vs QNST's -2.6%
- 21.8% ROA vs QNST's -5.9%, ROIC 9.0% vs 2.8%
NATR is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and long-term compounding.
- Dividend streak 1 yrs, beta 0.62
- 180.2% 10Y total return vs QNST's 288.4%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.62, Low D/E 11.7%, current ratio 2.28x
- Beta 0.62, current ratio 2.28x
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 78.3% revenue growth vs NATR's 5.7% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (6.6x vs 21.9x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 13.5% margin vs QNST's -2.6% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.62 vs TREE's 1.55, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 3.2% yield; the other 3 pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +85.3% vs LFVN's -53.5% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 21.8% ROA vs QNST's -5.9%, ROIC 9.0% vs 2.8% |
LFVN vs QNST vs TREE vs NATR — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
LFVN vs QNST vs TREE vs NATR — 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
TREE leads 1 • LFVN leads 1 • QNST leads 1
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
TREE leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
QNST is the larger business by revenue, generating $1.2B annually — 6.1x LFVN's $195M. TREE is the more profitable business, keeping 13.5% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to QNST's -2.6%. On growth, QNST holds the edge at +28.3% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $195M | $1.2B | $1.1B | $490M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $9M | $26M | $120M | $38M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $6M | -$30M | $181M | $20M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $4M | $99M | $73M | $23M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +78.1% | +10.5% | +94.3% | +69.9% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +3.4% | +1.7% | +7.3% | +5.7% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +2.9% | -2.6% | +13.5% | +4.1% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +1.9% | +8.4% | +5.4% | +4.7% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -25.2% | +28.3% | — | +8.5% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -57.7% | +59.4% | +2.3% | +16.0% |
Valuation Metrics
LFVN leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 3.7x trailing earnings, TREE trades at a 98% valuation discount to QNST's 165.6x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, LFVN's 3.6x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than QNST's 21.8x.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $64M | $761M | $552M | $430M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $56M | $671M | $906M | $355M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 6.61x | 165.55x | 3.69x | 23.16x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 10.47x | 7.11x | 21.92x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 3.63x | 21.84x | 8.73x | 9.20x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.28x | 0.70x | 0.49x | 0.90x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.88x | 3.19x | 1.95x | 2.81x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 6.12x | 9.18x | 9.09x | 14.90x |
Profitability & Efficiency
QNST leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
TREE delivers a 86.0% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $86 in annual profit, vs $-11 for QNST. QNST carries lower financial leverage with a 0.04x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to TREE's 1.52x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), QNST scores 8/9 vs NATR's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +17.8% | -11.1% | +86.0% | +12.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +9.1% | -5.9% | +21.8% | +7.6% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +37.5% | +2.8% | +9.0% | +21.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +29.5% | +2.4% | +13.2% | +13.8% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.34x | 0.04x | 1.52x | 0.12x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$9M | -$91M | $354M | -$75M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $20M | $101M | $81M | $94M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $12M | $10M | $435M | $19M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | 4.64x | 4.45x | 1100.81x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
NATR leads this category, winning 5 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 $2,126 for TREE. 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 LFVN's 15.3% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -16.0% | -5.1% | -22.7% | +17.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -53.5% | -26.9% | +6.1% | +85.3% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +53.2% | +81.0% | +112.0% | +129.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -19.4% | -28.4% | -78.7% | +18.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -42.0% | +288.4% | -45.7% | +180.2% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +15.3% | +21.9% | +28.5% | +31.8% |
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 TREE's 1.55 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 | 1.23x | 1.55x | 0.62x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $15.00 | $18.41 | $77.35 | $28.14 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $3.90 | $10.29 | $32.65 | $12.90 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +33.5% | +72.6% | +51.5% | +87.2% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 68.9 | 53.3 | 39.3 | 49.6 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 162K | 673K | 326K | 103K |
Analyst Outlook
NATR leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: QNST as "Buy", TREE as "Buy", NATR as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 73.2% upside for TREE (target: $69) vs -20.6% for NATR (target: $20). LFVN is the only dividend payer here at 3.17% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $15.00 | $69.00 | $19.50 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 13 | 23 | 4 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +3.2% | — | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | — | 0 | 1 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.16 | — | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +9.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | +3.8% |
NATR leads in 3 of 6 categories (Total Returns, Risk & Volatility). TREE leads in 1 (Income & Cash Flow).
LFVN vs QNST vs TREE vs NATR: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is LFVN or QNST or TREE or NATR a better buy right now?
For growth investors, QuinStreet, Inc.
(QNST) is the stronger pick with 78. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 5. 7% for Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc. (NATR). LendingTree, Inc. (TREE) offers the better valuation at 3. 7x trailing P/E (7. 1x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate QuinStreet, Inc. (QNST) a "Buy" — based on 13 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 QNST or TREE or NATR?
On trailing P/E, LendingTree, Inc.
(TREE) is the cheapest at 3. 7x versus QuinStreet, Inc. at 165. 6x. On forward P/E, LendingTree, Inc. is actually cheaper at 7. 1x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — LFVN or QNST or TREE or NATR?
Over the past 5 years, Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc.
(NATR) delivered a total return of +18. 8%, compared to -78. 7% for LendingTree, Inc. (TREE). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: QNST returned +288. 4% versus TREE's -45. 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 QNST or TREE or NATR?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc.
(NATR) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 62β versus LendingTree, Inc. 's 1. 55β — meaning TREE is approximately 149% more volatile than NATR relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, QuinStreet, Inc. (QNST) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 4% versus 152% for LendingTree, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — LFVN or QNST or TREE or NATR?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), QuinStreet, Inc.
(QNST) is pulling ahead at 78. 3% versus 5. 7% for Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc. (NATR). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: LendingTree, Inc. grew EPS 443. 3% year-over-year, compared to 114. 2% for QuinStreet, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, QNST leads at 23. 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 QNST or TREE or NATR?
LendingTree, Inc.
(TREE) is the more profitable company, earning 13. 5% net margin versus 0. 4% for QuinStreet, Inc. — meaning it keeps 13. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: TREE leads at 7. 3% versus 0. 6% for QNST. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — TREE leads at 94. 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 LFVN or QNST or TREE or NATR more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, LendingTree, Inc.
(TREE) trades at 7. 1x forward P/E versus 21. 9x for Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc. — 14. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for TREE: 73. 2% to $69. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — LFVN or QNST or TREE or NATR?
In this comparison, LFVN (3.
2% yield) pays a dividend. QNST, TREE, NATR do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is LFVN or QNST or TREE or NATR 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). LendingTree, Inc. (TREE) carries a higher beta of 1. 55 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (NATR: +180. 2%, TREE: -45. 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 QNST and TREE and NATR?
These companies operate in different sectors (LFVN (Consumer Defensive) and QNST (Communication Services) and TREE (Financial Services) and NATR (Consumer Defensive)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: LFVN is a small-cap deep-value stock; QNST is a small-cap high-growth stock; TREE is a small-cap high-growth stock; NATR is a small-cap quality compounder stock. LFVN pays a dividend while QNST, TREE, 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.