Crocs vs Wolverine World Wide
Add, change or remove companies; up to four.
KIRA’s take AI analyst
I put Crocs and Wolverine World Wide side by side, using each one’s latest annual report. Here is what stands out:
- Crocs is the larger business, with $4.0B of revenue in fiscal 2025 against $1.9B for Wolverine World Wide, about 2.2 times as much.
- Wolverine World Wide grew revenue faster (6.8%, against −1.5%).
- Wolverine World Wide kept more of each dollar of sales as operating profit (8.0% operating margin, against 3.7%).
- Crocs turned more of its sales into free cash flow (16.3% FCF margin, against 6.7%).
- Wolverine World Wide earned a higher return on the capital invested in it (15.1%, against 2.8%).
- Investors pay more for each dollar of Wolverine World Wide’s earnings: a P/E of 15.7x against 10.4x for Crocs.
Who comes out ahead
Of the 11 measures where higher (or lower) is clearly better, how many each company leads.
Crocs
CROX
4/11
5-year growthGross marginFCF marginShare count change
Wolverine World Wide
WWW
7/11
Revenue growthOperating marginNet marginReturn on capitalReturn on equityPiotroski F-scoreNet debt / EBITDA
Side by side
Best in the row
| Latest fiscal year | CROX FY25 | WWW FY25 |
|---|---|---|
| Size | ||
| Market cap | $5.9B | $1.7B |
| Revenue | $4.0B | $1.9B |
| Free cash flow | $659M | $126M |
| Net income | −$81.2M | $95.8M |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth | −1.5% | 6.8% |
| 5-year growth | 23.9% | 0.9% |
| Share count change | −9.4% | 2.1% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 58.3% | 47.3% |
| Operating margin | 3.7% | 8.0% |
| Net margin | −2.0% | 5.1% |
| FCF margin | 16.3% | 6.7% |
| Return on capital | 2.8% | 15.1% |
| Return on equity | −5.2% | 26.6% |
| Balance sheet | ||
| Net debt | $1.1B | $415M |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.8x | 2.4x |
| Dividends and buybacks | $582M | $47.8M |
| Valuation & quality | ||
| P/E | 10.4x | 15.7x |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 7 |
Ten years
Revenue
Operating margin
Free cash flow
Return on capital
Each company's latest fiscal year; fiscal years end in different months. The best value in each row is highlighted where higher (or lower) is clearly better. Not investment advice.