UAA Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

Lucid Group has a net margin of 12.18% compared to Under Armour's net margin of -496.14%. Under Armour's return on equity of -1.04% beat Lucid Group's return on equity of -71.79%.

Under Armour has a consensus price target of $9.58, signalling upside risk potential of 25.9%. On the other hand Lucid Group has an analysts' consensus of $3.27 which suggests that it could fall by -6.22%. Given that Under Armour has higher upside potential than Lucid Group, analysts believe Under Armour is more attractive than Lucid Group.

Under Armour has a beta of 1.690, which suggesting that the stock is 69.037% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Lucid Group has a beta of 0.000, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 100%.

Under Armour has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Lucid Group offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Under Armour pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Lucid Group pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

Under Armour quarterly revenues are $1.4B, which are larger than Lucid Group quarterly revenues of $200M. Under Armour's net income of $170.4M is higher than Lucid Group's net income of -$992.5M. Notably, Under Armour's price-to-earnings ratio is 12.70x while Lucid Group's PE ratio is --. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Under Armour is 0.71x versus 9.51x for Lucid Group. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Topgolf Callaway Brands has a net margin of 12.18% compared to Under Armour's net margin of -0.36%. Under Armour's return on equity of -1.04% beat Topgolf Callaway Brands's return on equity of -0.31%.

Under Armour has a consensus price target of $9.58, signalling upside risk potential of 25.9%. On the other hand Topgolf Callaway Brands has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could grow by 60%. Given that Topgolf Callaway Brands has higher upside potential than Under Armour, analysts believe Topgolf Callaway Brands is more attractive than Under Armour.

Under Armour has a beta of 1.690, which suggesting that the stock is 69.037% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Topgolf Callaway Brands has a beta of 1.698, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 69.792%.

Under Armour has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Topgolf Callaway Brands offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Under Armour pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Topgolf Callaway Brands pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

Under Armour quarterly revenues are $1.4B, which are larger than Topgolf Callaway Brands quarterly revenues of $1B. Under Armour's net income of $170.4M is higher than Topgolf Callaway Brands's net income of -$3.6M. Notably, Under Armour's price-to-earnings ratio is 12.70x while Topgolf Callaway Brands's PE ratio is 116.70x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Under Armour is 0.71x versus 0.34x for Topgolf Callaway Brands. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Rivian Automotive has a net margin of 12.18% compared to Under Armour's net margin of -125.86%. Under Armour's return on equity of -1.04% beat Rivian Automotive's return on equity of -68.23%.

Under Armour has a consensus price target of $9.58, signalling upside risk potential of 25.9%. On the other hand Rivian Automotive has an analysts' consensus of $15.03 which suggests that it could grow by 8.7%. Given that Under Armour has higher upside potential than Rivian Automotive, analysts believe Under Armour is more attractive than Rivian Automotive.

Under Armour has a beta of 1.690, which suggesting that the stock is 69.037% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Rivian Automotive has a beta of 0.000, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 100%.

Under Armour has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Rivian Automotive offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Under Armour pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Rivian Automotive pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

Under Armour quarterly revenues are $1.4B, which are larger than Rivian Automotive quarterly revenues of $874M. Under Armour's net income of $170.4M is higher than Rivian Automotive's net income of -$1.1B. Notably, Under Armour's price-to-earnings ratio is 12.70x while Rivian Automotive's PE ratio is --. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Under Armour is 0.71x versus 3.00x for Rivian Automotive. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Tesla has a net margin of 12.18% compared to Under Armour's net margin of 8.61%. Under Armour's return on equity of -1.04% beat Tesla's return on equity of 19.77%.

Under Armour has a consensus price target of $9.58, signalling upside risk potential of 25.9%. On the other hand Tesla has an analysts' consensus of $283.88 which suggests that it could fall by -32.58%. Given that Under Armour has higher upside potential than Tesla, analysts believe Under Armour is more attractive than Tesla.

Under Armour has a beta of 1.690, which suggesting that the stock is 69.037% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Tesla has a beta of 2.361, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 136.098%.

Under Armour has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Tesla offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Under Armour pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Tesla pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

Under Armour quarterly revenues are $1.4B, which are smaller than Tesla quarterly revenues of $25.2B. Under Armour's net income of $170.4M is lower than Tesla's net income of $2.2B. Notably, Under Armour's price-to-earnings ratio is 12.70x while Tesla's PE ratio is 115.36x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Under Armour is 0.71x versus 15.13x for Tesla. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.