Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. IPAR scored 50.5, ELF scored 49.7 — IPAR leads.
Compare another set
IPAR
Interparfums, Inc.
Household & Personal Products · Quality-Growth
50.5
$112.21 · $3.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
0.8
IPAR leads
ELF
e.l.f. Beauty, Inc.
Household & Personal Products · Quality-Growth
49.7
$109.23 · $6.4B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestIPAR21.4x
Fastest growthELF+24.6%
Strongest balance sheetIPAR0.15
Highest qualityIPAR88 / 100
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
Growth against the P/E multiple. Up and to the right is cheaper and faster — the quality-growth idea in one picture. Points beyond the axis are pinned to the edge and marked off-scale rather than allowed to compress everything else.
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
IPAR
stronger →← stronger
ELF
88
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
48
39
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
87
38
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
30
IPAR is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
IPAR
ELF
$243mC
FCF
$280mC
+2.5%C
Rev
+24.6%A-
0.15A-
D/E
0.80B
21.4xB
P/E
108.1xD
—
PEG
1.37B
Winner per row is the stronger grade; where grades tie, the better figure breaks it. A true tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
IPAR
ELF
17% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
49% above
~7%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~26%/yr
-13%
1-yr DCF upside
-48%
-15%
5-yr DCF upside
-33%
-16%
10-yr DCF upside
-5%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
IPAR
Why this score
Durable high returns
ELF
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
The companies
IPARInterparfums, Inc.
Household & Personal Products · $112.21 · beta 1.18
Why now
Household & Personal Products · market cap $3.6b. 13% off the 52-week high of $129.29. 6 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $126.50 (implying +13% upside).
Moat
ROE 19% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 145% of net income, helped by cash released from working capital ($27m, chiefly inventory sold down) that doesn't repeat every year.
Risk
Mature compounder — the risk is paying up for quality at a moment when growth is decelerating. Watch for sequential revenue + margin trends; the inflection from "compounder" to "ex-compounder" is hard to spot until the multiple already started compressing.
ELFe.l.f. Beauty, Inc.
Household & Personal Products · $109.23 · beta 1.60
Why now
Household & Personal Products · market cap $6.4b. Down 23% from 52-week high of $141.50 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +25%, comfortably above the S&P median. 16 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $105.00 (implying -4% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income.
Risk
Trailing P/E 108.1x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Beta 1.60 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. Net margin 3.4% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
IPAR leads ELF by 2.1 points (59.8 to 57.7), its sharpest advantage coming in P/E (grade B). A contrarian could still prefer ELF for its stronger Rev (grade A).
Our AI analyst is busy right now, so this verdict is drawn directly from the pillars, grades and DCF above.
Not investment advice. The Bull Rankings publishes a quantitative ranking model and accompanying analysis for general informational purposes only. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security; nothing is personalized to your circumstances, risk tolerance, or tax situation. Investing carries the risk of loss — invest at your own risk and consider consulting a licensed financial professional before acting on anything you read here. See terms and methodology for full disclosures.
Where IPAR and ELF diverge
On the headline score the gap is 0.8 points in favor of IPAR. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
GrowthIPAR 38.6 · ELF 87.1ELF +48.5
QualityIPAR 87.8 · ELF 47.7IPAR +40.1
ValueIPAR 38.1 · ELF 29.6IPAR +8.5
Pillars run 0–100. Value is judged against each company's own sector, so a Value score is a statement about a company relative to its own industry rather than to the other name here. A wide Value gap usually means the market already prices the difference in quality or growth — which is the trade-off this comparison comes down to.
Common questions
Is IPAR or ELF the better stock?
IPAR scores higher: IPAR 50.5, ELF 49.7 out of 100 on the Bull Rankings quality-growth score, which blends business quality, growth and valuation into one number. A higher score means a stronger business at a more reasonable price — it is not a price target or a recommendation.
Where do IPAR and ELF differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where ELF leads by 49 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. Neither name sweeps: they trade the lead across the three pillars, so the comparison is a trade-off rather than one being better on every measure.
How are IPAR and ELF scored?
Each carries the same 0–100 quality-growth score used everywhere on the site, built from three pillars — quality (profitability and returns on capital), growth (revenue and earnings), and value (what you pay for them) — combined as a geometric mean, so a weak pillar cannot be papered over by a strong one.
How current is this comparison?
The whole universe is re-scored every trading day after the US market close, so the scores and fundamentals here reflect the latest published edition.