Restore (RST) Competitors

Restore has a consensus target price of GBX 390.67, indicating a potential upside of 35.65%. Given Restore's stronger consensus rating and higher possible upside, analysts plainly believe Restore is more favorable than DWF Group.

DWF Group has a beta of 0.62, meaning that its stock price is 38% less volatile than the broader market. Comparatively, Restore has a beta of 0.113, meaning that its stock price is 89% less volatile than the broader market.

In the previous week, Restore had 5 more articles in the media than DWF Group. MarketBeat recorded 5 mentions for Restore and 0 mentions for DWF Group. Restore's average media sentiment score of 1.23 beat DWF Group's score of 0.00 indicating that Restore is being referred to more favorably in the news media.

DWF Group has a net margin of 2.76% compared to Restore's net margin of 0.43%. DWF Group's return on equity of 19.89% beat Restore's return on equity.

DWF Group has higher revenue and earnings than Restore. Restore is trading at a lower price-to-earnings ratio than DWF Group, indicating that it is currently the more affordable of the two stocks.

DWF Group pays an annual dividend of GBX 5 per share. Restore pays an annual dividend of GBX 6 per share and has a dividend yield of 2.1%. DWF Group pays out 12,500.0% of its earnings in the form of a dividend, suggesting it may not have sufficient earnings to cover its dividend payment in the future. Restore pays out -127.7% of its earnings in the form of a dividend. Restore is clearly the better dividend stock, given its higher yield and lower payout ratio.

36.2% of DWF Group shares are held by institutional investors. Comparatively, 21.2% of Restore shares are held by institutional investors. 54.9% of DWF Group shares are held by company insiders. Comparatively, 16.3% of Restore shares are held by company insiders. Strong institutional ownership is an indication that large money managers, hedge funds and endowments believe a stock will outperform the market over the long term.

21.2% of Restore shares are owned by institutional investors. Comparatively, 39.5% of RWS shares are owned by institutional investors. 16.3% of Restore shares are owned by insiders. Comparatively, 25.0% of RWS shares are owned by insiders. Strong institutional ownership is an indication that hedge funds, endowments and large money managers believe a company is poised for long-term growth.

Restore has higher earnings, but lower revenue than RWS. Restore is trading at a lower price-to-earnings ratio than RWS, indicating that it is currently the more affordable of the two stocks.

In the previous week, Restore had 4 more articles in the media than RWS. MarketBeat recorded 5 mentions for Restore and 1 mentions for RWS. Restore's average media sentiment score of 1.23 beat RWS's score of 0.00 indicating that Restore is being referred to more favorably in the media.

Restore has a beta of 0.113, indicating that its share price is 89% less volatile than the broader market. Comparatively, RWS has a beta of 0.538, indicating that its share price is 46% less volatile than the broader market.

Restore presently has a consensus target price of GBX 390.67, suggesting a potential upside of 35.65%. RWS has a consensus target price of GBX 172.50, suggesting a potential upside of 77.47%. Given RWS's higher possible upside, analysts clearly believe RWS is more favorable than Restore.

Restore pays an annual dividend of GBX 6 per share and has a dividend yield of 2.1%. RWS pays an annual dividend of GBX 7.05 per share and has a dividend yield of 7.3%. Restore pays out -127.7% of its earnings in the form of a dividend. RWS pays out -27.2% of its earnings in the form of a dividend. Both companies have healthy payout ratios and should be able to cover their dividend payments with earnings for the next several years.

Restore has a net margin of 0.43% compared to RWS's net margin of -13.60%. Restore's return on equity of 0.58% beat RWS's return on equity.

Restore has a beta of 0.113, suggesting that its share price is 89% less volatile than the broader market. Comparatively, Capita has a beta of 0.905, suggesting that its share price is 10% less volatile than the broader market.

21.2% of Restore shares are held by institutional investors. Comparatively, 28.2% of Capita shares are held by institutional investors. 16.3% of Restore shares are held by company insiders. Comparatively, 5.3% of Capita shares are held by company insiders. Strong institutional ownership is an indication that large money managers, hedge funds and endowments believe a stock will outperform the market over the long term.

Restore has higher earnings, but lower revenue than Capita. Restore is trading at a lower price-to-earnings ratio than Capita, indicating that it is currently the more affordable of the two stocks.

Restore has a net margin of 0.43% compared to Capita's net margin of -7.45%. Restore's return on equity of 0.58% beat Capita's return on equity.

Restore presently has a consensus price target of GBX 390.67, indicating a potential upside of 35.65%. Capita has a consensus price target of GBX 434.20, indicating a potential upside of 71.96%. Given Capita's higher probable upside, analysts plainly believe Capita is more favorable than Restore.

In the previous week, Restore had 4 more articles in the media than Capita. MarketBeat recorded 5 mentions for Restore and 1 mentions for Capita. Restore's average media sentiment score of 1.23 beat Capita's score of -0.91 indicating that Restore is being referred to more favorably in the media.

Restore presently has a consensus target price of GBX 390.67, indicating a potential upside of 35.65%. Franchise Brands has a consensus target price of GBX 197.50, indicating a potential upside of 36.52%. Given Franchise Brands' higher probable upside, analysts clearly believe Franchise Brands is more favorable than Restore.

In the previous week, Restore and Restore both had 5 articles in the media. Restore's average media sentiment score of 1.23 beat Franchise Brands' score of 0.27 indicating that Restore is being referred to more favorably in the media.

Restore pays an annual dividend of GBX 6 per share and has a dividend yield of 2.1%. Franchise Brands pays an annual dividend of GBX 2.45 per share and has a dividend yield of 1.7%. Restore pays out -127.7% of its earnings in the form of a dividend. Franchise Brands pays out 52.8% of its earnings in the form of a dividend. Both companies have healthy payout ratios and should be able to cover their dividend payments with earnings for the next several years. Restore is clearly the better dividend stock, given its higher yield and lower payout ratio.

21.2% of Restore shares are owned by institutional investors. Comparatively, 18.7% of Franchise Brands shares are owned by institutional investors. 16.3% of Restore shares are owned by insiders. Comparatively, 32.0% of Franchise Brands shares are owned by insiders. Strong institutional ownership is an indication that hedge funds, large money managers and endowments believe a stock will outperform the market over the long term.

Restore has a beta of 0.113, meaning that its share price is 89% less volatile than the broader market. Comparatively, Franchise Brands has a beta of 0.495, meaning that its share price is 51% less volatile than the broader market.

Franchise Brands has a net margin of 6.32% compared to Restore's net margin of 0.43%. Franchise Brands' return on equity of 4.06% beat Restore's return on equity.

Franchise Brands has lower revenue, but higher earnings than Restore. Restore is trading at a lower price-to-earnings ratio than Franchise Brands, indicating that it is currently the more affordable of the two stocks.