Apparel - Retail
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
ONON vs NKE vs LULU vs DECK vs BIRK
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Apparel - Footwear & Accessories
Apparel - Retail
Apparel - Footwear & Accessories
Apparel - Footwear & Accessories
ONON vs NKE vs LULU vs DECK vs BIRK — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Apparel - Retail | Apparel - Footwear & Accessories | Apparel - Retail | Apparel - Footwear & Accessories | Apparel - Footwear & Accessories |
| Market Cap | $10.58B | $52.89B | $14.88B | $14.62B | $7.18B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $3.01B | $46.51B | $11.10B | $5.37B | $2.14B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $203M | $2.52B | $1.58B | $1.04B | $379M |
| Gross Margin | 62.8% | 41.1% | 56.6% | 57.5% | 58.3% |
| Operating Margin | 12.5% | 6.5% | 19.8% | 23.8% | 26.4% |
| Forward P/E | 27.5x | 29.8x | 10.2x | 14.9x | 18.8x |
| Total Debt | $582M | $11.02B | $1.80B | $277M | $1.31B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $1.02B | $7.46B | $1.81B | $1.89B | $329M |
ONON vs NKE vs LULU vs DECK vs BIRK — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Oct 23 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| On Holding AG (ONON) | 100 | 138.9 | +38.9% |
| NIKE, Inc. (NKE) | 100 | 43.2 | -56.8% |
| Lululemon Athletica… (LULU) | 100 | 34.0 | -66.0% |
| Deckers Outdoor Cor… (DECK) | 100 | 103.2 | +3.2% |
| Birkenstock Holding… (BIRK) | 100 | 100.0 | -0.0% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: ONON vs NKE vs LULU vs DECK vs BIRK
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
ONON ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth exposure.
- Rev growth 24.2%, EPS growth -18.3%, 3Y rev CAGR 33.1%
- 24.2% revenue growth vs NKE's -9.8%
NKE is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability is your priority.
- Dividend streak 23 yrs, beta 1.17, yield 3.5%
- Beta 1.17 vs LULU's 1.61
- 3.5% yield; 23-year raise streak; the other 4 pay no meaningful dividend
LULU is the clearest fit if your priority is valuation efficiency.
- PEG 0.42 vs NKE's 4.82
- Lower P/E (10.2x vs 18.8x)
DECK carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for long-term compounding and sleep-well-at-night.
- 9.9% 10Y total return vs ONON's 1.9%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.46, Low D/E 11.0%, current ratio 3.72x
- 19.3% margin vs NKE's 5.4%
- -15.0% vs LULU's -51.5%
BIRK is the clearest fit if your priority is defensive.
- Beta 1.20, current ratio 3.30x
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 24.2% revenue growth vs NKE's -9.8% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (10.2x vs 18.8x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 19.3% margin vs NKE's 5.4% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.17 vs LULU's 1.61 | |
| Dividends | 3.5% yield; 23-year raise streak; the other 4 pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | -15.0% vs LULU's -51.5% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 25.4% ROA vs NKE's 6.7%, ROIC 99.7% vs 16.7% |
ONON vs NKE vs LULU vs DECK vs BIRK — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
ONON vs NKE vs LULU vs DECK vs BIRK — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
DECK leads in 2 of 6 categories
LULU leads 1 • NKE leads 1 • ONON leads 0 • BIRK leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — ONON and DECK and BIRK each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
NKE is the larger business by revenue, generating $46.5B annually — 21.8x BIRK's $2.1B. DECK is the more profitable business, keeping 19.3% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to NKE's 5.4%. On growth, ONON holds the edge at +21.7% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $3.0B | $46.5B | $11.1B | $5.4B | $2.1B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $504M | $3.7B | $2.7B | $1.3B | $687M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $203M | $2.5B | $1.6B | $1.0B | $379M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $277M | $2.5B | $922M | $929M | $282M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +62.8% | +41.1% | +56.6% | +57.5% | +58.3% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +12.5% | +6.5% | +19.8% | +23.8% | +26.4% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +6.8% | +5.4% | +14.2% | +19.3% | +17.7% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +9.2% | +5.3% | +8.3% | +17.3% | +13.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +21.7% | +0.6% | +0.8% | +7.1% | +11.1% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -19.2% | -30.8% | -19.1% | +10.0% | +145.5% |
Valuation Metrics
LULU leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 10.1x trailing earnings, LULU trades at a 79% valuation discount to ONON's 47.9x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), LULU offers better value at 0.42x vs NKE's 3.32x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $10.6B | $52.9B | $14.9B | $14.6B | $7.2B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $10.0B | $56.4B | $14.9B | $13.0B | $8.3B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 47.88x | 20.56x | 10.07x | 16.22x | 17.77x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 27.46x | 29.83x | 10.24x | 14.91x | 18.78x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 3.32x | 0.42x | 0.51x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 16.19x | 12.52x | 5.49x | 10.42x | 10.80x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.86x | 1.14x | 1.34x | 2.93x | 2.91x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 5.67x | 5.00x | 3.17x | 6.24x | 2.28x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 32.54x | 16.18x | 16.14x | 15.25x | 21.20x |
Profitability & Efficiency
DECK leads this category, winning 9 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
DECK delivers a 39.9% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $40 in annual profit, vs $13 for ONON. DECK carries lower financial leverage with a 0.11x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to NKE's 0.83x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), DECK scores 9/9 vs LULU's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +13.5% | +17.9% | +34.7% | +39.9% | +13.7% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +7.7% | +6.7% | +20.1% | +25.4% | +7.7% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +26.9% | +16.7% | +37.2% | +99.7% | +11.3% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +18.8% | +13.8% | +35.8% | +44.7% | +12.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.36x | 0.83x | 0.36x | 0.11x | 0.48x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$439M | $3.6B | -$9M | -$1.6B | $1.0B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $1.0B | $7.5B | $1.8B | $1.9B | $329M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $582M | $11.0B | $1.8B | $277M | $1.3B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 8.18x | 10.45x | — | 301.92x | 10.04x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
DECK leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in DECK five years ago would be worth $18,056 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $3,733 for NKE. Over the past 12 months, DECK leads with a -15.0% total return vs LULU's -51.5%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors DECK at 7.6% vs LULU's -29.5% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -24.1% | -29.2% | -36.6% | -3.8% | -6.5% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -26.5% | -21.5% | -51.5% | -15.0% | -24.7% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +3.7% | -61.4% | -65.0% | +24.6% | -2.8% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +1.9% | -62.7% | -59.5% | +80.6% | -2.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +1.9% | -5.2% | +108.6% | +986.8% | -2.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +1.2% | -27.2% | -29.5% | +7.6% | -1.0% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — NKE and DECK each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
NKE is the less volatile stock with a 1.17 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than LULU's 1.61 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. DECK currently trades 77.0% from its 52-week high vs LULU's 39.3% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.59x | 1.17x | 1.61x | 1.46x | 1.20x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $61.29 | $80.17 | $340.25 | $133.43 | $59.50 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $31.41 | $42.09 | $127.82 | $78.91 | $33.06 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +58.2% | +55.4% | +39.3% | +77.0% | +65.6% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 50.8 | 36.5 | 31.3 | 49.0 | 54.7 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 6.6M | 20.8M | 2.9M | 1.8M | 2.1M |
Analyst Outlook
NKE leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: ONON as "Buy", NKE as "Buy", LULU as "Hold", DECK as "Buy", BIRK as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 58.5% upside for ONON (target: $57) vs 18.2% for DECK (target: $121). NKE is the only dividend payer here at 3.48% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Hold | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $56.50 | $69.88 | $209.14 | $121.38 | $55.54 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 26 | 71 | 70 | 54 | 16 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +3.5% | — | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 23 | — | 1 | 2 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $1.55 | — | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +5.6% | +7.9% | +3.9% | +3.2% |
DECK leads in 2 of 6 categories (Profitability & Efficiency, Total Returns). LULU leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
ONON vs NKE vs LULU vs DECK vs BIRK: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is ONON or NKE or LULU or DECK or BIRK a better buy right now?
For growth investors, On Holding AG (ONON) is the stronger pick with 24.
2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -9. 8% for NIKE, Inc. (NKE). Lululemon Athletica Inc. (LULU) offers the better valuation at 10. 1x trailing P/E (10. 2x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate On Holding AG (ONON) a "Buy" — based on 26 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 — ONON or NKE or LULU or DECK or BIRK?
On trailing P/E, Lululemon Athletica Inc.
(LULU) is the cheapest at 10. 1x versus On Holding AG at 47. 9x. On forward P/E, Lululemon Athletica Inc. is actually cheaper at 10. 2x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Lululemon Athletica Inc. wins at 0. 42x versus NIKE, Inc. 's 4. 82x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — ONON or NKE or LULU or DECK or BIRK?
Over the past 5 years, Deckers Outdoor Corporation (DECK) delivered a total return of +80.
6%, compared to -62. 7% for NIKE, Inc. (NKE). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: DECK returned +986. 8% versus NKE's -5. 2%. 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 — ONON or NKE or LULU or DECK or BIRK?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), NIKE, Inc.
(NKE) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 17β versus Lululemon Athletica Inc. 's 1. 61β — meaning LULU is approximately 38% more volatile than NKE relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Deckers Outdoor Corporation (DECK) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 11% versus 83% for NIKE, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — ONON or NKE or LULU or DECK or BIRK?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), On Holding AG (ONON) is pulling ahead at 24.
2% versus -9. 8% for NIKE, Inc. (NKE). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Birkenstock Holding plc grew EPS 83. 3% year-over-year, compared to -42. 1% for NIKE, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, ONON leads at 33. 1% 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 — ONON or NKE or LULU or DECK or BIRK?
Deckers Outdoor Corporation (DECK) is the more profitable company, earning 19.
4% net margin versus 6. 8% for On Holding AG — meaning it keeps 19. 4% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: BIRK leads at 26. 2% versus 8. 0% for NKE. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — ONON leads at 62. 8%, 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 ONON or NKE or LULU or DECK or BIRK 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, Lululemon Athletica Inc. (LULU) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 42x versus NIKE, Inc. 's 4. 82x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Lululemon Athletica Inc. (LULU) trades at 10. 2x forward P/E versus 29. 8x for NIKE, Inc. — 19. 6x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for ONON: 58. 5% to $56. 50.
08Which pays a better dividend — ONON or NKE or LULU or DECK or BIRK?
In this comparison, NKE (3.
5% yield) pays a dividend. ONON, LULU, DECK, BIRK do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is ONON or NKE or LULU or DECK or BIRK better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, NIKE, Inc.
(NKE) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1. 17), 3. 5% yield). On Holding AG (ONON) carries a higher beta of 1. 59 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (NKE: -5. 2%, ONON: +1. 9%), 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 ONON and NKE and LULU and DECK and BIRK?
Both stocks operate in the Consumer Cyclical sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
In terms of investment character: ONON is a mid-cap high-growth stock; NKE is a mid-cap income-oriented stock; LULU is a mid-cap deep-value stock; DECK is a mid-cap high-growth stock; BIRK is a small-cap high-growth stock. NKE pays a dividend while ONON, LULU, DECK, BIRK 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.