VFC vs UAA

For growth investors, V.

F. Corporation (VFC) is the stronger pick with -9. 1% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -9. 4% for Under Armour, Inc. (UAA). Analysts rate V. F. Corporation (VFC) a "Hold" — based on 58 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, V.

F. Corporation (VFC) delivered a total return of -72. 9%, compared to -73. 9% for Under Armour, Inc. (UAA). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: VFC returned -45. 4% versus UAA's -83. 5%. 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), Under Armour, Inc.

(UAA) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 36β versus V. F. Corporation's 2. 36β — meaning VFC is approximately 73% more volatile than UAA relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Under Armour, Inc. (UAA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 69% versus 4% for V. F. Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), V.

F. Corporation (VFC) is pulling ahead at -9. 1% versus -9. 4% for Under Armour, Inc. (UAA). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: V. F. Corporation grew EPS 80. 3% year-over-year, compared to -190. 4% for Under Armour, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, UAA leads at -3. 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.

V.

F. Corporation (VFC) is the more profitable company, earning -2. 0% net margin versus -3. 9% for Under Armour, Inc. — meaning it keeps -2. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: VFC leads at 3. 2% versus -3. 6% for UAA. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — VFC leads at 53. 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.

On forward earnings alone, V.

F. Corporation (VFC) trades at 23. 1x forward P/E versus 55. 0x for Under Armour, Inc. — 32. 0x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for UAA: 16. 4% to $7. 43.

In this comparison, VFC (1.

9% yield) pays a dividend. UAA does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Under Armour, Inc.

(UAA) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding. V. F. Corporation (VFC) 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 (UAA: -83. 5%, VFC: -45. 4%), 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.

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.

VFC pays a dividend while UAA 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.