Apparel - Manufacturers
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
XELB vs AMZN vs MSFT vs ICON vs AAPL
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Specialty Retail
Software - Infrastructure
Marine Shipping
Consumer Electronics
XELB vs AMZN vs MSFT vs ICON vs AAPL — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Apparel - Manufacturers | Specialty Retail | Software - Infrastructure | Marine Shipping | Consumer Electronics |
| Market Cap | $12M | $2.92T | $3.13T | $2M | $4.22T |
| Revenue (TTM) | $5M | $742.78B | $318.27B | $6M | $451.44B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-22M | $90.80B | $125.22B | $-5M | $122.58B |
| Gross Margin | 100.0% | 50.6% | 68.3% | -0.7% | 47.9% |
| Operating Margin | -208.4% | 11.5% | 46.8% | -32.2% | 32.6% |
| Forward P/E | — | 34.8x | 25.3x | — | 33.8x |
| Total Debt | $13M | $152.99B | $112.18B | $16M | $112.38B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $1M | $86.81B | $30.24B | $946K | $35.93B |
XELB vs AMZN vs MSFT vs ICON vs AAPL — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jul 24 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Xcel Brands, Inc. (XELB) | 100 | 34.0 | -66.0% |
| Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) | 100 | 145.0 | +45.0% |
| Microsoft Corporati… (MSFT) | 100 | 100.6 | +0.6% |
| Icon Energy Corp. (ICON) | 100 | 0.9 | -99.1% |
| Apple Inc. (AAPL) | 100 | 129.4 | +29.4% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: XELB vs AMZN vs MSFT vs ICON vs AAPL
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
Among these 5 stocks, XELB doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
AMZN is the clearest fit if your priority is valuation efficiency.
- PEG 1.24 vs AAPL's 1.89
- Better valuation composite
MSFT has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 19 yrs, beta 0.89, yield 0.8%
- Rev growth 14.9%, EPS growth 15.6%, 3Y rev CAGR 12.4%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.89, Low D/E 32.7%, current ratio 1.35x
- Beta 0.89, yield 0.8%, current ratio 1.35x
ICON is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth and stability is your priority.
- 18.6% revenue growth vs XELB's -53.5%
- Beta 0.50 vs XELB's 2.03
AAPL ranks third and is worth considering specifically for long-term compounding.
- 11.7% 10Y total return vs MSFT's 7.9%
- +47.0% vs ICON's -14.9%
- 34.0% ROA vs XELB's -53.8%, ROIC 67.4% vs -33.6%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 18.6% revenue growth vs XELB's -53.5% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 39.3% margin vs XELB's -437.1% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.50 vs XELB's 2.03 | |
| Dividends | 0.8% yield, 19-year raise streak, vs ICON's 15.5%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +47.0% vs ICON's -14.9% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 34.0% ROA vs XELB's -53.8%, ROIC 67.4% vs -33.6% |
XELB vs AMZN vs MSFT vs ICON vs AAPL — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
XELB vs AMZN vs MSFT vs ICON vs AAPL — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
AAPL leads in 2 of 6 categories
MSFT leads 1 • ICON leads 1 • XELB leads 0 • AMZN leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MSFT leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
AMZN is the larger business by revenue, generating $742.8B annually — 149151.8x XELB's $5M. MSFT is the more profitable business, keeping 39.3% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to XELB's -4.4%. On growth, MSFT holds the edge at +18.3% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $5M | $742.8B | $318.3B | $6M | $451.4B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$7M | $155.9B | $192.6B | -$492,000 | $160.0B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$22M | $90.8B | $125.2B | -$5M | $122.6B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$7M | -$2.5B | $72.9B | -$24M | $129.2B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +100.0% | +50.6% | +68.3% | -0.7% | +47.9% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -2.1% | +11.5% | +46.8% | -32.2% | +32.6% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -4.4% | +12.2% | +39.3% | -79.7% | +27.2% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -132.8% | -0.3% | +22.9% | -3.9% | +28.6% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -41.5% | +16.6% | +18.3% | — | +16.6% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -4.2% | +74.8% | +23.4% | — | +21.8% |
Valuation Metrics
ICON leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 30.9x trailing earnings, MSFT trades at a 20% valuation discount to AAPL's 38.5x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), AMZN offers better value at 1.35x vs AAPL's 2.16x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $12M | $2.92T | $3.13T | $2M | $4.22T |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $24M | $2.98T | $3.21T | $17M | $4.30T |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.25x | 37.82x | 30.86x | -7.35x | 38.53x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 34.77x | 25.34x | — | 33.78x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 1.35x | 1.64x | — | 2.16x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 20.47x | 19.72x | 9.12x | 29.68x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.41x | 4.07x | 11.10x | 0.29x | 10.14x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.19x | 7.14x | 9.15x | 0.13x | 58.49x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 378.98x | 43.66x | — | 42.72x |
Profitability & Efficiency
AAPL leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
AAPL delivers a 146.7% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $147 in annual profit, vs $-131 for XELB. MSFT carries lower financial leverage with a 0.33x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to AAPL's 1.52x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), AAPL scores 8/9 vs XELB's 3/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -131.3% | +23.3% | +33.1% | -23.9% | +146.7% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -53.8% | +11.5% | +19.2% | -8.3% | +34.0% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -33.6% | +14.7% | +24.9% | +0.8% | +67.4% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -39.4% | +15.3% | +29.7% | +1.0% | +69.6% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 8 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.47x | 0.37x | 0.33x | 1.36x | 1.52x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $12M | $66.2B | $81.9B | $15M | $76.4B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $1M | $86.8B | $30.2B | $946,000 | $35.9B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $13M | $153.0B | $112.2B | $16M | $112.4B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -11.56x | 39.96x | 55.65x | -0.97x | — |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
AAPL leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in AAPL five years ago would be worth $22,442 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $1,257 for ICON. Over the past 12 months, AAPL leads with a +47.0% total return vs ICON's -14.9%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors AMZN at 36.8% vs ICON's -49.9% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +120.9% | +19.7% | -10.8% | +91.4% | +6.2% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +2.5% | +43.7% | -2.1% | -14.9% | +47.0% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -60.0% | +156.2% | +39.5% | -87.4% | +67.4% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -87.2% | +64.8% | +72.5% | -87.4% | +124.4% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -96.0% | +697.8% | +787.7% | -87.4% | +1174.1% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -26.3% | +36.8% | +11.7% | -49.9% | +18.7% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — ICON and AAPL each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
ICON is the less volatile stock with a 0.50 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than XELB's 2.03 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. AAPL currently trades 98.4% from its 52-week high vs ICON's 29.6% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 2.03x | 1.51x | 0.89x | 0.50x | 0.99x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $3.17 | $278.56 | $555.45 | $4.23 | $292.13 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.74 | $185.01 | $356.28 | $0.55 | $193.25 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +76.7% | +97.3% | +75.8% | +29.6% | +98.4% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 65.5 | 81.1 | 54.0 | 59.7 | 69.4 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 40K | 45.5M | 32.5M | 277K | 39.8M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — MSFT and ICON each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: AMZN as "Buy", MSFT as "Buy", AAPL as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 31.1% upside for MSFT (target: $552) vs 10.3% for AAPL (target: $317). For income investors, ICON offers the higher dividend yield at 15.54% vs AAPL's 0.36%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Buy | — | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $306.77 | $551.75 | — | $317.11 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 94 | 81 | — | 110 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | +0.8% | +15.5% | +0.4% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | — | 19 | 0 | 14 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | $3.23 | $0.19 | $1.03 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.9% | 0.0% | +0.6% | +100.0% | +2.1% |
AAPL leads in 2 of 6 categories (Profitability & Efficiency, Total Returns). MSFT leads in 1 (Income & Cash Flow). 2 tied.
XELB vs AMZN vs MSFT vs ICON vs AAPL: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is XELB or AMZN or MSFT or ICON or AAPL a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Icon Energy Corp.
(ICON) is the stronger pick with 18. 6% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -53. 5% for Xcel Brands, Inc. (XELB). Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) offers the better valuation at 30. 9x trailing P/E (25. 3x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Amazon. com, Inc. (AMZN) a "Buy" — based on 94 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 — XELB or AMZN or MSFT or ICON or AAPL?
On trailing P/E, Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) is the cheapest at 30.
9x versus Apple Inc. at 38. 5x. On forward P/E, Microsoft Corporation is actually cheaper at 25. 3x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Amazon. com, Inc. wins at 1. 24x versus Apple Inc. 's 1. 89x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.
03Which is the better long-term investment — XELB or AMZN or MSFT or ICON or AAPL?
Over the past 5 years, Apple Inc.
(AAPL) delivered a total return of +124. 4%, compared to -87. 4% for Icon Energy Corp. (ICON). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: AAPL returned +1174% versus XELB's -96. 0%. 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 — XELB or AMZN or MSFT or ICON or AAPL?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Icon Energy Corp.
(ICON) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 50β versus Xcel Brands, Inc. 's 2. 03β — meaning XELB is approximately 306% more volatile than ICON relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 33% versus 152% for Apple Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — XELB or AMZN or MSFT or ICON or AAPL?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Icon Energy Corp.
(ICON) is pulling ahead at 18. 6% versus -53. 5% for Xcel Brands, Inc. (XELB). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Amazon. com, Inc. grew EPS 29. 7% year-over-year, compared to -819. 6% for Xcel Brands, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, MSFT leads at 12. 4% 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 — XELB or AMZN or MSFT or ICON or AAPL?
Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) is the more profitable company, earning 36.
1% net margin versus -271. 2% for Xcel Brands, Inc. — meaning it keeps 36. 1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: MSFT leads at 45. 6% versus -259. 2% for XELB. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — XELB leads at 94. 6%, 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 XELB or AMZN or MSFT or ICON or AAPL more undervalued right now?
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, Amazon. com, Inc. (AMZN) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 24x versus Apple Inc. 's 1. 89x. A PEG below 1. 5 suggests fair-to-attractive pricing relative to expected growth. On forward earnings alone, Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) trades at 25. 3x forward P/E versus 34. 8x for Amazon. com, Inc. — 9. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for MSFT: 31. 1% to $551. 75.
08Which pays a better dividend — XELB or AMZN or MSFT or ICON or AAPL?
In this comparison, ICON (15.
5% yield), MSFT (0. 8% yield), AAPL (0. 4% yield) pay a dividend. XELB, AMZN do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is XELB or AMZN or MSFT or ICON or AAPL better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
89), 0. 8% yield, +787. 7% 10Y return). Xcel Brands, Inc. (XELB) carries a higher beta of 2. 03 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (MSFT: +787. 7%, XELB: -96. 0%), 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 XELB and AMZN and MSFT and ICON and AAPL?
These companies operate in different sectors (XELB (Consumer Cyclical) and AMZN (Consumer Cyclical) and MSFT (Technology) and ICON (Industrials) and AAPL (Technology)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: XELB is a small-cap quality compounder stock; AMZN is a mega-cap quality compounder stock; MSFT is a mega-cap quality compounder stock; ICON is a small-cap high-growth stock; AAPL is a mega-cap quality compounder stock. MSFT, ICON pay a dividend while XELB, AMZN, AAPL 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.