Ulta Beauty holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across valuation and profitability. Burlington Stores does not offset that deficit through any equally strong structural edge elsewhere. In the market, Burlington Stores carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Ulta Beauty's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Ulta Beauty, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
This is not just a one-metric split: both valuation and profitability materially support the lead. The overall score gap is 19 points in favour of Ulta Beauty, Inc..
This comparison is anchored in long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
The pair sits on a clearly comparable long-term path, though it is not a near-twin match.
Most of the shared profile comes through margin consistency and capital structure.
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.
Ulta Beauty, Inc. looks stronger both structurally and on relative valuation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a forward P/E that is 7 turns lower.
On the market side, Burlington Stores carries the stronger trend while Ulta Beauty's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
The lead is built on both valuation and profitability, making it broader than a single-dimension result.
Break down the BURL vs ULTA comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how BURL and ULTA 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.
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.