COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
ELF vs TPB
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. ELF scored 56.3, TPB scored 56.2 — ELF leads.
Compare another set
ELF
e.l.f. Beauty, Inc.
56.3
$101.94 · $6.0B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
0.1
ELF leads
TPB
Turning Point Brands, Inc.
56.2
$83.41 · $1.7B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestTPB36.3x
- Fastest growthELF+31.2%
- Strongest balance sheetTPB0.68
- Highest qualityTPB54 / 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)
ELF
stronger →← stronger
TPB
47
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
54
94
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
68
40
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
49
TPB is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
ELF
TPB
$280mC
FCF
$20mC-
+31.2%A
Rev
+24.5%A-
0.80B
D/E
0.68B
104.0xD
P/E
36.3xC
1.37B
PEG
0.05A
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
ELF
TPB
134% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
243% above
~28%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~48%/yr
-59%
1-yr DCF upside
-78%
-57%
5-yr DCF upside
-71%
-55%
10-yr DCF upside
-56%
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
ELF
Why this score
- Diluting shareholders
TPB
Why this score
- Raising its dividend
- Diluting shareholders
The companies
ELFe.l.f. Beauty, Inc.
Why now
Household & Personal Products · market cap $6.0b. Down 32% from 52-week high of $150.99 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +31% — in hypergrowth territory. 16 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $97.75 (implying -4% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income — non-cash charges (depreciation, intangible amortization) are holding down GAAP earnings while cash generation stays strong.
Risk
Trailing P/E 104.0x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Down 32% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 2.39 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return.
TPBTurning Point Brands, Inc.
Why now
Tobacco · market cap $1.7b. Down 43% from 52-week high of $146.90 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +24%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.05 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 6 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $125.17 (implying +50% upside).
Moat
Moat signals from the quantitative card are modest — profitability and capital efficiency are middle-of-pack. The thesis here depends on softer factors (switching costs, brand, distribution, regulatory protection) not captured by the quality-growth screen.
Risk
Down 43% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Trailing P/E 36x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
TPB leads ELF by 0.3 points (56.3 to 56.0), its sharpest advantage coming in P/E (grade C). A contrarian could still prefer ELF for its stronger FCF (grade C). All screen as growth-type names but sit in different sectors (Household & Personal Products versus Tobacco), so their grades are relative to different peer sets.
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 ELF and TPB diverge
The two are effectively level on the headline score. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- GrowthELF 93.9 · TPB 67.8ELF +26.1
- ValueELF 40.1 · TPB 48.6TPB +8.5
- QualityELF 47.4 · TPB 53.8TPB +6.4
Pillars run 0–100 against sector peers, so a 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.