Apparel - Retail
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
TLYS vs ZUMZ vs BOOT vs CATO vs ANF
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Apparel - Retail
Apparel - Retail
Apparel - Retail
Apparel - Retail
TLYS vs ZUMZ vs BOOT vs CATO vs ANF — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Apparel - Retail | Apparel - Retail | Apparel - Retail | Apparel - Retail | Apparel - Retail |
| Market Cap | $125M | $425M | $4.97B | $53M | $3.60B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $554M | $929M | $1.92B | $660M | $5.27B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-17M | $13M | $171M | $-10M | $507M |
| Gross Margin | 29.7% | 35.8% | 37.5% | 32.2% | 58.6% |
| Operating Margin | -3.5% | 1.8% | 11.8% | -2.4% | 13.4% |
| Forward P/E | — | 31.3x | 22.3x | — | 8.0x |
| Total Debt | $170M | $199M | $563M | $146M | $1.17B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $46M | $128M | $70M | $20M | $760M |
TLYS vs ZUMZ vs BOOT vs CATO vs ANF — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tilly's, Inc. (TLYS) | 100 | 81.3 | -18.8% |
| Zumiez Inc. (ZUMZ) | 100 | 102.7 | +2.7% |
| Boot Barn Holdings,… (BOOT) | 100 | 760.6 | +660.6% |
| The Cato Corporation (CATO) | 100 | 30.1 | -69.9% |
| Abercrombie & Fitch… (ANF) | 100 | 675.6 | +575.6% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: TLYS vs ZUMZ vs BOOT vs CATO vs ANF
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
TLYS is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and defensive is your priority.
- Dividend streak 4 yrs, beta 0.79
- Beta 0.79, current ratio 1.25x
- Beta 0.79 vs ZUMZ's 1.87
- +232.8% vs ANF's +12.7%
Among these 5 stocks, ZUMZ doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
BOOT ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 14.6%, EPS growth 22.5%, 3Y rev CAGR 8.7%
- 19.6% 10Y total return vs ANF's 219.7%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.68, Low D/E 49.8%, current ratio 2.45x
- 14.6% revenue growth vs CATO's -8.2%
CATO is the clearest fit if your priority is dividends.
- 18.7% yield; the other 4 pay no meaningful dividend
ANF carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for value and quality.
- Better valuation composite
- 9.6% margin vs TLYS's -3.2%
- 15.1% ROA vs TLYS's -5.3%, ROIC 31.4% vs -6.0%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 14.6% revenue growth vs CATO's -8.2% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 9.6% margin vs TLYS's -3.2% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.79 vs ZUMZ's 1.87 | |
| Dividends | 18.7% yield; the other 4 pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +232.8% vs ANF's +12.7% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 15.1% ROA vs TLYS's -5.3%, ROIC 31.4% vs -6.0% |
TLYS vs ZUMZ vs BOOT vs CATO vs ANF — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
TLYS vs ZUMZ vs BOOT vs CATO vs ANF — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
ANF leads in 2 of 6 categories
TLYS leads 1 • ZUMZ leads 0 • BOOT leads 0 • CATO leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ANF leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ANF is the larger business by revenue, generating $5.3B annually — 9.5x TLYS's $554M. ANF is the more profitable business, keeping 9.6% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to TLYS's -3.2%. On growth, BOOT holds the edge at +18.7% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $554M | $929M | $1.9B | $660M | $5.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$9M | $44M | $297M | -$5M | $862M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$17M | $13M | $171M | -$10M | $507M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $3M | $51M | -$141M | -$7M | $378M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +29.7% | +35.8% | +37.5% | +32.2% | +58.6% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -3.5% | +1.8% | +11.8% | -2.4% | +13.4% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -3.2% | +1.4% | +8.9% | -1.5% | +9.6% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +0.6% | +5.5% | -7.4% | -1.1% | +7.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +5.3% | +4.4% | +18.7% | +6.3% | +5.4% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +121.6% | +38.5% | +44.2% | +64.6% | +3.1% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — CATO and ANF each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 7.5x trailing earnings, ANF trades at a 77% valuation discount to ZUMZ's 32.1x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, ANF's 4.7x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than ZUMZ's 29.1x.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $125M | $425M | $5.0B | $53M | $3.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $249M | $496M | $5.5B | $178M | $4.0B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -7.17x | 32.09x | 27.78x | -3.01x | 7.51x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 31.32x | 22.26x | — | 7.98x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 0.95x | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 29.12x | 18.10x | — | 4.68x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.23x | 0.46x | 2.60x | 0.08x | 0.68x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.48x | 1.33x | 4.44x | 0.35x | 2.68x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 7.82x | — | — | 9.52x |
Profitability & Efficiency
ANF leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
ANF delivers a 38.5% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $39 in annual profit, vs $-21 for TLYS. BOOT carries lower financial leverage with a 0.50x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to TLYS's 2.00x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), ZUMZ scores 7/9 vs CATO's 2/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -21.3% | +4.4% | +14.2% | -5.8% | +38.5% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -5.3% | +2.5% | +7.6% | -2.2% | +15.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -6.0% | +3.1% | +12.1% | -6.7% | +31.4% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -8.5% | +5.5% | +15.7% | -9.6% | +30.5% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 2 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 2.00x | 0.61x | 0.50x | 0.90x | 0.82x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $124M | $71M | $493M | $126M | $409M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $46M | $128M | $70M | $20M | $760M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $170M | $199M | $563M | $146M | $1.2B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | — | 159.63x | -1.77x | 302.38x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — TLYS and BOOT and ANF each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in BOOT five years ago would be worth $21,899 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $3,961 for CATO. Over the past 12 months, TLYS leads with a +232.8% total return vs ANF's +12.7%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors ANF at 49.9% vs CATO's -21.9% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +105.9% | -3.3% | -12.5% | -2.7% | -36.6% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +232.8% | +113.7% | +45.7% | +27.5% | +12.7% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -46.2% | +51.4% | +127.9% | -52.4% | +237.1% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -51.1% | -45.5% | +119.0% | -60.4% | +92.7% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +61.9% | +56.8% | +1960.2% | -72.3% | +219.7% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -18.7% | +14.8% | +31.6% | -21.9% | +49.9% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — TLYS and ZUMZ each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
TLYS is the less volatile stock with a 0.79 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than ZUMZ's 1.87 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. ZUMZ currently trades 79.0% from its 52-week high vs ANF's 59.0% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.79x | 1.87x | 1.68x | 0.88x | 1.42x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $5.52 | $31.70 | $210.25 | $4.92 | $133.11 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.57 | $11.41 | $110.54 | $2.26 | $65.45 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +75.4% | +79.0% | +77.7% | +59.3% | +59.0% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 50.2 | 56.5 | 58.0 | 48.6 | 33.0 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.4M | 151K | 616K | 60K | 1.2M |
Analyst Outlook
TLYS leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: TLYS as "Hold", ZUMZ as "Hold", BOOT as "Buy", ANF as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 128.4% upside for TLYS (target: $10) vs -22.1% for ZUMZ (target: $20). CATO is the only dividend payer here at 18.71% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Hold | Buy | — | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $9.50 | $19.50 | $231.50 | — | $120.80 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 17 | 33 | 29 | — | 55 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | +18.7% | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 4 | — | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | $0.55 | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +9.0% | 0.0% | +7.4% | +12.5% |
ANF leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). TLYS leads in 1 (Analyst Outlook). 3 tied.
TLYS vs ZUMZ vs BOOT vs CATO vs ANF: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is TLYS or ZUMZ or BOOT or CATO or ANF a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Boot Barn Holdings, Inc.
(BOOT) is the stronger pick with 14. 6% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -8. 2% for The Cato Corporation (CATO). Abercrombie & Fitch Co. (ANF) offers the better valuation at 7. 5x trailing P/E (8. 0x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Boot Barn Holdings, Inc. (BOOT) a "Buy" — based on 29 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 — TLYS or ZUMZ or BOOT or CATO or ANF?
On trailing P/E, Abercrombie & Fitch Co.
(ANF) is the cheapest at 7. 5x versus Zumiez Inc. at 32. 1x. On forward P/E, Abercrombie & Fitch Co. is actually cheaper at 8. 0x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — TLYS or ZUMZ or BOOT or CATO or ANF?
Over the past 5 years, Boot Barn Holdings, Inc.
(BOOT) delivered a total return of +119. 0%, compared to -60. 4% for The Cato Corporation (CATO). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: BOOT returned +1960% versus CATO's -72. 3%. 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 — TLYS or ZUMZ or BOOT or CATO or ANF?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Tilly's, Inc.
(TLYS) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 79β versus Zumiez Inc. 's 1. 87β — meaning ZUMZ is approximately 136% more volatile than TLYS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Boot Barn Holdings, Inc. (BOOT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 50% versus 2% for Tilly's, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — TLYS or ZUMZ or BOOT or CATO or ANF?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Boot Barn Holdings, Inc.
(BOOT) is pulling ahead at 14. 6% versus -8. 2% for The Cato Corporation (CATO). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Zumiez Inc. grew EPS 961. 9% year-over-year, compared to -2. 2% for Abercrombie & Fitch Co.. Over a 3-year CAGR, ANF leads at 12. 5% 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 — TLYS or ZUMZ or BOOT or CATO or ANF?
Abercrombie & Fitch Co.
(ANF) is the more profitable company, earning 9. 6% net margin versus -3. 2% for Tilly's, Inc. — meaning it keeps 9. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ANF leads at 13. 3% versus -4. 2% for CATO. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — ANF leads at 58. 5%, 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 TLYS or ZUMZ or BOOT or CATO or ANF more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Abercrombie & Fitch Co.
(ANF) trades at 8. 0x forward P/E versus 31. 3x for Zumiez Inc. — 23. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for TLYS: 128. 4% to $9. 50.
08Which pays a better dividend — TLYS or ZUMZ or BOOT or CATO or ANF?
In this comparison, CATO (18.
7% yield) pays a dividend. TLYS, ZUMZ, BOOT, ANF do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is TLYS or ZUMZ or BOOT or CATO or ANF better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, The Cato Corporation (CATO) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
88), 18. 7% yield). Zumiez Inc. (ZUMZ) carries a higher beta of 1. 87 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (CATO: -72. 3%, ZUMZ: +56. 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.
10What are the main differences between TLYS and ZUMZ and BOOT and CATO and ANF?
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: TLYS is a small-cap quality compounder stock; ZUMZ is a small-cap quality compounder stock; BOOT is a small-cap quality compounder stock; CATO is a small-cap income-oriented stock; ANF is a small-cap deep-value stock. CATO pays a dividend while TLYS, ZUMZ, BOOT, ANF 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.