Ulta Beauty leads structurally, with valuation as the clearest single gap between the two profiles. Starbucks still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Starbucks 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. Both peer scores are relative to the S&P 500 universe, making them directly comparable.
Most of the separation is still concentrated in valuation. The overall score gap is 18 points in favour of Ulta Beauty, Inc..
These two companies are linked by measured long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
This level of similarity signals a strong structural match, even though some dimensions still separate the two companies.
The strongest overlap appears in margin trend and revenue stability.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Pricing shapes this comparison more than a broad operating gap.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The structural gap is limited here, but current pricing still leans against Starbucks Corporation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where SBUX and ULTA each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a forward P/E that is 19.7 turns lower.
Earnings growth also leans toward SBUX, which keeps the score lead from reading as a full growth sweep.
The valuation lead is clear, but pricing and growth still pull in the other direction — the result holds, but not without friction.
Break down the SBUX vs ULTA comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how SBUX 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.
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.