Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. LULU scored 47.9, TPR scored 73.9 — TPR leads.
Compare another set
LULU
lululemon athletica inc.
Apparel Retail · Quality-Growth
47.9
$94.50 · $10.9B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
26.0
TPR leads
TPR
Tapestry, Inc.
Luxury Goods · Quality-Growth
73.9
$116.24 · $23.1B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestLULU7.8x
Fastest growthTPR+14.2%
Strongest balance sheetLULU0.45
Highest qualityLULU89 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueLULU-46%
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)
LULU
stronger →← stronger
TPR
89
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
82
23
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
76
55
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
64
TPR is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
LULU
TPR
$1.4bC+
FCF
$1.8bC+
+1.7%C
Rev
+14.2%B+
0.45B+
D/E
5.72D
7.8xA
P/E
16.0xB+
—
PEG
1.66C+
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
LULU
TPR
46% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
3% below
~-12%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~7%/yr
+92%
1-yr DCF upside
-6%
+87%
5-yr DCF upside
+3%
+80%
10-yr DCF upside
+18%
These two disagree on this pair: the Value pillar ranks cheapness against sector peers, while price-vs-fair-value is an absolute read. A name can be the better value in its sector and still the dearer one on cash flows.
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
LULU
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
TPR
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
The companies
LULUlululemon athletica inc.
Apparel Retail · $94.50 · beta 0.92
Why now
Apparel Retail · market cap $10.9b. Down 58% from 52-week high of $225.98 — deep drawdown territory. 27 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $104.91 (implying +11% upside).
Moat
Net margin 13% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 30% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 96% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Down 58% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up.
TPRTapestry, Inc.
Luxury Goods · $116.24 · beta 1.43
Why now
Luxury Goods · market cap $23.1b. Down 29% from 52-week high of $164.80 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +14%, comfortably above the S&P median. 20 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $166.50 (implying +43% upside).
Moat
Net margin 19% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. FCF converts 119% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
D/E 5.72 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Beta 1.43 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
Generating verdict… typically 5–10 seconds
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 LULU and TPR diverge
On the headline score the gap is 26.0 points in favor of TPR. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
GrowthLULU 22.5 · TPR 76.0TPR +53.5
ValueLULU 54.6 · TPR 64.5TPR +9.9
QualityLULU 89.1 · TPR 82.3LULU +6.8
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 TPR or LULU the better stock?
TPR scores higher: TPR 73.9, LULU 47.9 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 TPR and LULU differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where TPR leads by 54 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 TPR and LULU 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.