SSKN vs SKIN vs ELF vs ESTA

For growth investors, e.

l. f. Beauty, Inc. (ELF) is the stronger pick with 28. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -10. 0% for The Beauty Health Company (SKIN). e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. (ELF) offers the better valuation at 32. 2x trailing P/E (19. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. (ELF) a "Buy" — based on 27 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, e.

l. f. Beauty, Inc. (ELF) delivered a total return of +105. 0%, compared to -98. 9% for STRATA Skin Sciences, Inc. (SSKN). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ESTA returned +191. 0% versus SSKN's -99. 6%. 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), STRATA Skin Sciences, Inc.

(SSKN) is the lower-risk stock at -0. 24β versus e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. 's 2. 36β — meaning ELF is approximately -1067% more volatile than SSKN relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. (ELF) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 41% versus 11% for Establishment Labs Holdings Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), e.

l. f. Beauty, Inc. (ELF) is pulling ahead at 28. 3% versus -10. 0% for The Beauty Health Company (SKIN). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: The Beauty Health Company grew EPS 55. 6% year-over-year, compared to -13. 1% for e. l. f. Beauty, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, ELF leads at 49. 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.

e.

l. f. Beauty, Inc. (ELF) is the more profitable company, earning 8. 5% net margin versus -30. 1% for STRATA Skin Sciences, Inc. — meaning it keeps 8. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ELF leads at 12. 0% versus -27. 6% for SSKN. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — ELF leads at 71. 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.

Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for ELF: 54.

0% to $95. 17.

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.

For long-horizon retirement investors, STRATA Skin Sciences, Inc.

(SSKN) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0. 24)). The Beauty Health Company (SKIN) carries a higher beta of 2. 00 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (SSKN: -99. 6%, SKIN: -91. 6%), 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 (SSKN (Healthcare) and SKIN (Consumer Defensive) and ELF (Consumer Defensive) and ESTA (Healthcare)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.

In terms of investment character: SSKN is a small-cap quality compounder stock; SKIN is a small-cap quality compounder stock; ELF is a small-cap high-growth stock; ESTA is a small-cap high-growth 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.