NUS vs MED

For growth investors, Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc.

(NUS) is the stronger pick with -14. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -36. 0% for Medifast, Inc. (MED). 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 Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. (NUS) a "Hold" — 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.

Over the past 5 years, Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc.

(NUS) delivered a total return of -80. 0%, compared to -89. 8% for Medifast, Inc. (MED). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MED returned +23. 4% versus NUS's -48. 8%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Medifast, Inc.

(MED) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 94β versus Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. 's 1. 49β — meaning NUS is approximately 58% more volatile than MED relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Medifast, Inc. (MED) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 8% versus 45% for Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc.

(NUS) is pulling ahead at -14. 3% versus -36. 0% for Medifast, Inc. (MED). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. grew EPS 207. 8% year-over-year, compared to -994. 7% for Medifast, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, NUS leads at -12. 6% 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.

Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc.

(NUS) is the more profitable company, earning 10. 8% net margin versus -4. 8% for Medifast, 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 -3. 7% for MED. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — MED leads at 71. 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.

Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for NUS: 56.

7% to $11. 00.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. (NUS) offers the highest yield at 3. 4%, versus 0. 1% for Medifast, Inc. (MED).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Medifast, Inc.

(MED) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 94)). Both have compounded well over 10 years (MED: +23. 4%, NUS: -48. 8%), 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.

These companies operate in different sectors (NUS (Consumer Defensive) and MED (Consumer Cyclical)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.

In terms of investment character: NUS is a small-cap deep-value stock; MED is a small-cap quality compounder stock. NUS pays a dividend while MED does 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.