lululemon athletica holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across profitability and growth. Burlington Stores still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Burlington Stores carries the stronger setup — intact trend against lululemon athletica's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with lululemon athletica, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Both peer scores are relative to the Russell 1000 universe, making them directly comparable.
The clearest score difference appears in profitability, while growth still leans the other way. lululemon athletica inc. leads by 14 points on the overall comparison score.
Both operate in: Apparel Retail
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. BURL and LULU share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Burlington Stores and lululemon athletica each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Score differences across key dimensions.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The two profiles are relatively close, but the price setup still leans toward lululemon athletica inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where BURL and LULU each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
Capital efficiency adds support, with a 20.5-point ROIC advantage.
Earnings growth also leans toward BURL, which keeps the score lead from reading as a full growth sweep.
The profitability lead is clear, but pricing and growth still pull in the other direction — the result holds, but not without friction.
Break down the BURL vs LULU comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how BURL and LULU each compare against other companies in their peer groups.
Rule-based, descriptive analysis only. Derived from peer percentile dimensions. Not investment advice. Peer groups are determined algorithmically based on structural similarity — not by sector classification alone.
AssetNext scores reflect each company's structural position within its functional peer group — not a ranking against all stocks simultaneously. Peers are identified by similarity across eight financial dimensions, including revenue growth trajectory, margin structure, capital intensity, and earnings stability. A score of 75 means the company ranks in the top quartile within its own peer group, not the entire market.
Four dimension scores drive the overall peer score: Growth (revenue trajectory and expansion dynamics), Quality (margin structure and capital efficiency), Valuation (peer-relative pricing on standard multiples), and Stability (earnings consistency and financial predictability). Each dimension is scored 0–100 relative to the peer group, then combined into an overall peer score using equal weighting.
Because scores are peer-relative, the same company can have slightly different scores in different index universes. On comparison pages, both companies are shown within their shared peer universe wherever possible — so the scores are directly comparable. The peer basis is stated on each score card.
Scores are recalculated periodically as underlying financial data is updated. All analysis is descriptive and rule-based — AssetNext describes structural realities and never issues buy, sell or hold recommendations.