WALD vs SKIN vs ELF vs IPAR

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). Inter Parfums, Inc. (IPAR) offers the better valuation at 17. 9x trailing P/E (19. 4x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Waldencast plc (WALD) a "Buy" — based on 4 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, Inter Parfums, Inc.

(IPAR) is the cheapest at 17. 9x versus e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. at 32. 2x. On forward P/E, Inter Parfums, Inc. is actually cheaper at 19. 4x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. wins at 0. 49x versus Inter Parfums, Inc. 's 0. 57x — 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 +105. 0%, compared to -92. 9% for The Beauty Health Company (SKIN). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: IPAR returned +255. 2% versus SKIN's -91. 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), Inter Parfums, Inc.

(IPAR) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 54β versus e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. 's 2. 36β — meaning ELF is approximately 334% more volatile than IPAR relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Inter Parfums, Inc. (IPAR) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 20% versus 6% for The Beauty Health Company — 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: Waldencast plc grew EPS 56. 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.

Inter Parfums, Inc.

(IPAR) is the more profitable company, earning 11. 3% net margin versus -15. 5% for Waldencast plc — meaning it keeps 11. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: IPAR leads at 18. 2% versus -21. 4% for WALD. 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, e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. (ELF) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 49x versus Inter Parfums, Inc. 's 0. 57x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Inter Parfums, Inc. (IPAR) trades at 19. 4x forward P/E versus 19. 9x for e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. — 0. 5x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for WALD: 78. 6% to $2. 50.

In this comparison, IPAR (3.

4% yield) pays a dividend. WALD, SKIN, ELF do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Inter Parfums, Inc.

(IPAR) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 54), 3. 4% yield, +255. 2% 10Y return). 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 (IPAR: +255. 2%, 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 (WALD (Technology) and SKIN (Consumer Defensive) and ELF (Consumer Defensive) and IPAR (Consumer Defensive)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.

In terms of investment character: WALD is a small-cap high-growth stock; SKIN is a small-cap quality compounder stock; ELF is a small-cap high-growth stock; IPAR is a small-cap deep-value stock. IPAR pays a dividend while WALD, SKIN, ELF 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.