ULTA vs ELF

For growth investors, e.

l. f. Beauty, Inc. (ELF) is the stronger pick with 28. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 9. 7% for Ulta Beauty, Inc. (ULTA). Ulta Beauty, Inc. (ULTA) offers the better valuation at 20. 9x trailing P/E (18. 7x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Ulta Beauty, Inc. (ULTA) a "Buy" — based on 47 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.

On trailing P/E, Ulta Beauty, Inc.

(ULTA) is the cheapest at 20. 9x versus e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. at 32. 0x. On forward P/E, Ulta Beauty, Inc. is actually cheaper at 18. 7x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Ulta Beauty, Inc. wins at 0. 36x versus e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. 's 0. 49x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, e.

l. f. Beauty, Inc. (ELF) delivered a total return of +100. 9%, compared to +68. 8% for Ulta Beauty, Inc. (ULTA). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ULTA returned +156. 4% versus ELF's +131. 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), Ulta Beauty, Inc.

(ULTA) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 74β versus e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. 's 2. 36β — meaning ELF is approximately 217% more volatile than ULTA 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 78% for Ulta Beauty, 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 9. 7% for Ulta Beauty, Inc. (ULTA). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Ulta Beauty, Inc. grew EPS 1. 2% 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.

Ulta Beauty, Inc.

(ULTA) is the more profitable company, earning 9. 3% net margin versus 8. 5% for e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. — meaning it keeps 9. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ULTA leads at 39. 1% versus 12. 0% for ELF. 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.

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, Ulta Beauty, Inc. (ULTA) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 36x versus e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. 's 0. 49x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Ulta Beauty, Inc. (ULTA) trades at 18. 7x forward P/E versus 19. 8x for e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. — 1. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for ELF: 54. 9% 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, Ulta Beauty, Inc.

(ULTA) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 74), +156. 4% 10Y return). e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. (ELF) carries a higher beta of 2. 36 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (ULTA: +156. 4%, ELF: +131. 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 (ULTA (Consumer Cyclical) and ELF (Consumer Defensive)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.

In terms of investment character: ULTA is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; ELF 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.