Our definitive November 20, 2025 analysis of The Gym Group plc (GYM) evaluates the company through five core lenses, including its competitive moat, financial stability, and fair value. The report benchmarks GYM against key rivals like PureGym and Basic-Fit, concluding with actionable insights framed by the investment principles of Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger.
The outlook for The Gym Group plc is mixed. The company has shown strong revenue recovery and is excellent at generating cash. However, this is overshadowed by an extremely high and risky debt load. Profitability remains razor-thin due to intense competition in the low-cost gym sector. The business model suffers from a weak competitive moat and low customer loyalty. Furthermore, past growth has been funded by issuing new shares, diluting existing investors. Caution is warranted until the company strengthens its balance sheet and profitability.
UK: LSE
The Gym Group's business model is centered on providing affordable and flexible fitness solutions to a broad market in the United Kingdom. The company owns and operates a network of over 230 gyms, offering members 24/7 access with no fixed-term contracts. This 'no-contract' approach is a key part of its value proposition, appealing to customers who want flexibility and low commitment. Revenue is primarily generated through recurring monthly membership fees, which are set at a low price point, typically between £20 and £25. A smaller, but growing, portion of revenue comes from ancillary sources, including premium membership tiers that offer additional benefits like multi-gym access and the ability to bring a friend.
The company's cost structure is defined by high fixed costs, making profitability heavily dependent on membership volume. The largest expenses are property leases for their gym sites, staff wages, and utilities, with energy prices being a significant variable. This owner-operator model is capital-intensive, as The Gym Group must fund the fit-out and equipment for each new location itself. This contrasts sharply with capital-light franchise models used by peers like Planet Fitness. The business model has high operating leverage, meaning that once a gym's fixed costs are covered, each additional member contributes significantly to profit, making membership density a critical driver of financial performance.
From a competitive standpoint, The Gym Group possesses a very narrow moat. Its primary advantages are its operational scale within the UK and its established brand recognition. However, these are not durable enough to fend off determined competitors. The lack of contracts means customer switching costs are virtually zero, leading to a constant battle for members based on price and location convenience. The company faces a direct, larger rival in PureGym, which operates an identical model with more sites. More worryingly, it faces newer entrants like JD Gyms and Everlast Gyms, which are backed by massive, cash-rich retail conglomerates (JD Sports and Frasers Group) that can afford to invest heavily in facilities and potentially subsidize gym operations to support their core retail businesses.
The long-term resilience of The Gym Group's business model is questionable. While the low-cost gym concept has proven popular and resilient through economic cycles, the company's specific competitive position is vulnerable. Its capital-intensive structure limits its pace of expansion compared to franchise-based peers and makes it financially weaker than its conglomerate-backed rivals. Without strong pricing power or significant customer lock-in, its long-term profitability will likely be constrained by the intense competitive pressures in the UK market. The company's future depends on its ability to execute flawlessly on site selection and operational efficiency, as it has little room for error.
A detailed look at The Gym Group's recent financial statements reveals a company with strong top-line growth and cash flow but significant underlying weaknesses. Revenue grew by 10.93% to £226.3 million, demonstrating healthy demand. The company's ability to generate cash is a major strength; its operating cash flow was £95.1 million, which is impressive relative to its revenue. This cash generation is critical for funding operations and expansion.
However, the company's profitability is a major concern. Despite a very high gross margin of 98.72%, high operating costs shrink the operating margin to 10.47% and the net profit margin to a meager 1.94%. This indicates that the business model struggles to convert revenue into bottom-line profit after covering its substantial fixed costs, including rent and staff. This thin margin provides little cushion against unexpected cost increases or revenue slowdowns.
The most significant red flag is the balance sheet. The Gym Group is highly leveraged, with total debt of £401.8 million dwarfing its shareholder equity of £131.6 million. This results in a high debt-to-equity ratio of 3.05 and a concerning Debt/EBITDA ratio of 5.17. Furthermore, its liquidity position is precarious, with a current ratio of 0.16, suggesting potential challenges in meeting its short-term financial obligations. This combination of high debt and low liquidity makes the company financially fragile.
In summary, The Gym Group's financial foundation appears risky. While the ability to grow revenue and generate cash is positive, the benefits are largely consumed by high debt service costs and operating expenses. The weak profitability, poor returns on capital, and fragile balance sheet present significant risks for investors, making the financial position unstable despite its operational cash-generating capabilities.
Over the last five fiscal years (Analysis period: FY2020–FY2024), The Gym Group's performance has been a rollercoaster, defined by a severe pandemic-driven downturn followed by a strong operational turnaround. The company's historical record shows resilience in its business model but also highlights significant costs to shareholders in the form of equity dilution. This period saw the company navigate mandatory closures, which decimated its financials in 2020 and 2021, before embarking on a path back to growth and profitability.
From a growth perspective, the recovery has been impressive on the surface. Revenue climbed from a low of £80.5 million in FY2020 to £226.3 million by FY2024. However, this growth was choppy, and earnings per share (EPS) followed a volatile path from a loss of -£0.23 in FY2020 to a modest profit of £0.02 in FY2024. Profitability trends mirror this recovery. Operating margins, which collapsed to -40.99% in 2020, have steadily improved to a healthier 10.47% in 2024. This demonstrates improving operational discipline and the benefits of increased scale as the business returned to normal. Despite this, net profit margin remains thin at just 1.94%, indicating the business is still susceptible to cost pressures.
The most telling aspect of Gym Group's past performance lies in its cash flow and shareholder returns. The business has proven to be a strong cash generator, with operating cash flow growing from £15.3 million in 2020 to £95.1 million in 2024. Free cash flow has also turned strongly positive. Unfortunately, this cash generation has not translated into strong shareholder returns. The company does not pay a dividend, and instead of buying back stock, it has consistently issued new shares to fund its operations and growth. The total number of shares outstanding swelled from 157 million to 177 million over the five-year period, a significant dilution that has suppressed per-share value growth. When compared to the hyper-growth of European peer Basic-Fit, GYM's UK-focused expansion appears more modest and its shareholder experience has been considerably weaker.
This analysis evaluates The Gym Group's growth prospects through the fiscal year ending 2028 (FY2028). Projections are based on analyst consensus estimates where available, supplemented by management guidance and independent modeling for longer-term views. According to analyst consensus, The Gym Group is expected to achieve revenue growth of ~11% in FY2025 and ~9% in FY2026. Earnings Per Share (EPS) growth is projected to be stronger due to operating leverage, with consensus estimates pointing to an EPS CAGR of over 20% from FY2024–FY2026. All figures are based on the company's fiscal year, which aligns with the calendar year.
The primary driver of The Gym Group's growth is its physical site expansion, or 'whitespace' strategy. The company aims to increase its UK footprint from ~230 sites to over 300, providing a clear, albeit finite, runway for revenue and membership growth. A secondary driver is yield management, which involves increasing the average revenue per member through targeted price rises and encouraging members to upgrade to premium tiers like 'LIVE IT.'. This strategy allows the company to grow revenue from its existing gym portfolio. These drivers are supported by the broader consumer trend towards health, wellness, and value-for-money services, which sustains demand for low-cost gym memberships.
Compared to its peers, The Gym Group is a solid but geographically constrained operator. It is significantly outmatched in scale and growth potential by international players like Basic-Fit (1,400+ clubs across Europe) and PureGym (600+ clubs globally). A more pressing threat comes from domestic competitors with immense financial backing, such as JD Gyms and Everlast Gyms (owned by JD Sports and Frasers Group, respectively). These companies can fund aggressive expansion and marketing campaigns, putting pressure on GYM's market share and pricing power. The key risk for The Gym Group is being unable to compete effectively for new sites and members against these larger, better-capitalized rivals, potentially slowing its rollout plan and compressing margins.
In the near-term, over the next 1 year (to FY2025), the base case scenario sees revenue growth of ~11% (analyst consensus), driven by the opening of 10-12 new gyms. Over the next 3 years (to FY2028), the model assumes a revenue CAGR of ~8%, as the pace of new openings may naturally slow as the market becomes more saturated. The most sensitive variable is membership growth at new and mature sites. A 5% shortfall in expected membership numbers would reduce the 1-year revenue growth forecast to ~6%, while a 5% beat could push it to ~16%. Key assumptions include: (1) successful execution of the 10-15 annual site opening plan, (2) stable UK consumer discretionary spending, and (3) rational pricing from competitors. A bear case for the next 3 years would see revenue CAGR fall to ~4% if competition intensifies, while a bull case could see ~12% growth if they accelerate openings and achieve strong membership uptake.
Over the long term, the outlook becomes more moderate. The 5-year scenario (to FY2030) projects a revenue CAGR of ~6% (independent model), as the company approaches its 300+ site target and growth becomes more reliant on price increases and smaller efficiency gains. Beyond that, the 10-year outlook (to FY2035) is for low single-digit growth (Revenue CAGR 2030–2035: ~3% (independent model)), resembling a mature utility-like business unless a new growth strategy, such as international expansion, is adopted. The key long-duration sensitivity is the total number of viable sites in the UK. If the total addressable market is 10% larger than expected (e.g., 330+ sites), the 5-year revenue CAGR could be closer to ~8%. Conversely, if saturation is reached sooner, it could fall to ~4%. Assumptions include: (1) no international expansion, (2) market saturation around the 300-350 club mark, and (3) continued relevance of the large-box low-cost gym model. This paints a picture of a company with strong near-term growth that rapidly moderates over the long run.
The valuation of The Gym Group plc as of November 20, 2025, with a stock price of £135.00, reveals a complex scenario where different methods yield conflicting results. The company's strong cash generation capacity is pitted against high financial leverage and questionable earnings-based value.
A triangulated valuation provides the following insights. A reasonable fair value estimate, primarily weighing the EV/EBITDA multiple, falls in the range of £1.00–£1.92 per share, suggesting the stock is fairly valued with a limited margin of safety at the current price. The earnings multiples for GYM are not compelling. The TTM P/E ratio is 33.13, which appears expensive compared to its industry, and the forward P/E of 43.13 suggests earnings are expected to decline. In contrast, the EV/EBITDA (TTM) ratio of 7.64 is more reasonable and forms the basis of the fair value estimate.
The most bullish signal for the company is its cash-flow yield. With a TTM FCF of £62.1M and a market cap of £241.3M, the FCF yield is an impressive 25.7%. While this is a major positive, the sustainability of the recent 27.4% FCF margin is questionable, as it significantly exceeds the operating margin. This suggests the high cash generation might be temporary, so while it is a strength, it must be viewed with caution.
In conclusion, a triangulation of these methods leads to a fair value assessment. The EV/EBITDA method is given the most weight as it is less distorted by financing and tax structures than the P/E ratio and provides a more stable view than the potentially anomalous free cash flow figure. The high debt remains the single largest risk factor, justifying a discount and making the stock appropriate for investors with a higher risk tolerance.
Warren Buffett would view The Gym Group in 2025 as an understandable but ultimately mediocre business operating in a fiercely competitive industry. His investment thesis for the fitness sector would demand a company with a strong, durable brand that confers pricing power and predictable, recession-resistant cash flows, which The Gym Group lacks. While he would appreciate the simple, easy-to-understand business model, he would be deterred by the absence of a durable competitive moat; the no-contract model creates minimal switching costs for customers, and the intense competition from better-capitalized rivals like JD Gyms and Frasers Group presents a significant risk to long-term profitability. The company's return on invested capital has historically been inconsistent and not at the high levels Buffett seeks, and its reliance on debt to fund expansion (net debt/EBITDA of ~1.9x) in a cyclical industry would be a red flag. Management primarily uses cash to reinvest in opening new gyms, which is appropriate for a growth company, but this strategy is only beneficial if returns on new sites consistently exceed the cost of capital, a challenging feat in a crowded market. If forced to choose the best businesses in the sector, Buffett would likely favor Planet Fitness (PLNT) for its capital-light, high-margin franchise model and Basic-Fit (BFIT) for its dominant European scale, even though he would still be wary of the debt levels at both companies. Ultimately, Buffett would almost certainly avoid investing in The Gym Group, concluding it is not the high-quality, moat-protected compounder he looks for. A dramatic fall in price to a significant discount to its intrinsic value, perhaps below 5x EV/EBITDA, might make him look, but he would still prefer a better business.
Charlie Munger would likely view The Gym Group as an inherently difficult business operating in a fiercely competitive, commodity-like industry. He would be highly critical of the nonexistent switching costs due to the 'no-contract' model, which fundamentally undermines any long-term competitive moat. While operationally efficient, the capital-intensive owner-operator model requires constant reinvestment for growth, depressing returns on capital compared to superior franchise models. For retail investors, the key takeaway is that this is a tough business to own for the long term, as it lacks the pricing power and durable advantages Munger would demand, making it a clear avoidance.
Bill Ackman would view The Gym Group as a simple, understandable business, but one that falls short of his high-quality criteria. He would appreciate its straightforward, low-cost model and manageable leverage, with net debt to EBITDA around a reasonable 1.9x. However, Ackman would be highly concerned by the lack of a durable competitive moat; the no-contract model creates minimal customer switching costs, and the business faces intense pressure from better-capitalized rivals like JD Sports and Frasers Group, which can out-invest in facilities. The company's owner-operator model is also capital-intensive, consuming free cash flow for expansion, which contrasts sharply with the capital-light franchise models Ackman typically prefers, such as Planet Fitness. Management's use of cash is logical, reinvesting all available capital into opening new sites to drive growth, a strategy that makes sense as long as the returns on new gyms remain high. If forced to choose the best stocks in the sector, Ackman would almost certainly favor Planet Fitness (PLNT) for its superior capital-light franchise model and iconic brand, and Basic-Fit (BFIT) for its proven international scale and much larger growth runway compared to GYM's UK-only focus. Ultimately, Ackman would likely avoid The Gym Group, seeing it as a structurally disadvantaged player in an overly competitive market. Ackman might reconsider his position only if the stock were to trade at a deep discount, offering a highly compelling free cash flow yield once its expansion phase matures.
The Gym Group plc operates in the highly competitive low-cost fitness sector, a market defined by high volume, low prices, and minimal frills. The company's core strategy revolves around providing affordable, 24/7 gym access with no-contract memberships, a model that strongly appeals to price-sensitive consumers. This approach allowed it to build a substantial member base and a strong brand presence across the United Kingdom. Its competitive positioning is largely dependent on its ability to secure prime locations for its gyms, manage operational costs efficiently, and maintain high membership levels to leverage its fixed-cost base. The business model is inherently scalable but requires significant upfront capital investment for site fit-outs, which can strain finances during rapid expansion or economic downturns.
When compared to its peers, The Gym Group's single-country focus is both a strength and a weakness. It allows for deep market penetration and operational focus within the UK, but it also means the company's fortunes are tied directly to the health of the UK consumer economy. Competitors like Basic-Fit have pursued aggressive international expansion across Europe, diversifying their revenue streams and tapping into larger addressable markets. Similarly, US-based Planet Fitness operates on a much larger scale, benefiting from significant economies of scale in marketing, equipment procurement, and technology development that The Gym Group cannot match. This difference in scale directly impacts profitability and the capacity for reinvestment in growth and innovation.
Furthermore, The Gym Group faces intense domestic competition from both direct and indirect players. Its primary rival, PureGym, is larger in terms of site count and membership, creating a constant battle for market share. Additionally, diversified companies like JD Sports (JD Gyms) and Frasers Group (Everlast Gyms) have entered the market, using their financial muscle and retail expertise to build compelling fitness offerings. These competitors can potentially subsidize their gym operations with profits from other business segments, creating pricing pressure. While The Gym Group has a clear and proven model, its path to future growth is crowded with well-resourced rivals, making continued execution on site selection and member value proposition critical for its long-term success.
PureGym is The Gym Group's most direct and formidable competitor, operating a near-identical low-cost, no-contract model primarily within the UK, but with a growing international presence. As the UK market leader by site count and membership, PureGym benefits from superior scale, brand recognition, and operational leverage. This size advantage allows for greater marketing spend and potentially better terms with suppliers. While both companies have recovered strongly post-pandemic, PureGym's larger footprint and private equity ownership give it a different strategic and financial posture, often focused on aggressive expansion. For an investor, The Gym Group represents a publicly-traded pure-play on the UK value gym market, whereas PureGym's value is realized through private markets, but its competitive actions directly impact GYM's performance.
From a business and moat perspective, both companies operate with relatively weak moats, as switching costs for customers are virtually zero due to the no-contract model. However, PureGym has a stronger brand and scale advantage. PureGym has over 600 locations globally (370+ in the UK) and over 1.9 million members, compared to GYM's 230+ sites and ~900k members. This scale gives PureGym better economies of scale in procurement and marketing. Neither company has significant network effects or regulatory barriers. Overall, PureGym wins on Business & Moat due to its superior scale and market leadership, which creates a more powerful brand presence and operational efficiency.
Financially, direct comparison is challenging as PureGym is a private company. However, based on its latest reported figures, PureGym generated revenue of £549 million in 2023 with an adjusted EBITDA of £203 million, implying a strong EBITDA margin of around 37%. The Gym Group reported revenue of £204 million and adjusted EBITDA of £76 million in 2023, for a similar margin of 37%. This shows both are highly efficient operators. However, PureGym carries a substantial debt load from its leveraged buyout ownership, with reported net debt often exceeding 4x EBITDA. The Gym Group has maintained a more conservative balance sheet, with net debt/EBITDA typically around 1.5x-2.0x. On financial health, The Gym Group is better due to its lower leverage, while PureGym is better on absolute revenue and profit generation. Given the importance of a resilient balance sheet, The Gym Group wins on Financials for a public investor's risk perspective.
Looking at past performance, both companies have demonstrated impressive growth. PureGym grew from a startup to the UK's largest gym operator in just over a decade, including a major acquisition of LA Fitness. The Gym Group has also grown rapidly since its IPO in 2015. Both companies suffered during the pandemic lockdowns but have seen membership and revenue rebound strongly since. In terms of growth, PureGym has been more aggressive, expanding into Switzerland, Denmark, the Middle East, and the US. GYM has remained UK-focused. For historical growth and expansion, PureGym is the winner. For shareholder returns, this is not a direct comparison, but GYM's stock has been volatile, experiencing a significant drawdown post-pandemic before recovering. Overall Past Performance winner is PureGym due to its more aggressive and successful expansion history.
For future growth, both companies see significant opportunity in the continued penetration of the low-cost gym market. PureGym's strategy is explicitly focused on international expansion, providing a larger Total Addressable Market (TAM) and geographic diversification. The Gym Group's growth is centered on UK expansion, with a target of reaching 300+ sites. While this offers a clear path, it is a more limited opportunity. PureGym's multi-country strategy gives it more levers for growth and reduces its dependency on the UK economy. Consensus for GYM is for steady ~10-15% revenue growth as it opens new sites. PureGym's outlook is likely similar or higher given its international runway. The overall Growth outlook winner is PureGym due to its larger and more diversified growth opportunities.
In terms of valuation, as a private company, PureGym does not have a public market valuation. It is owned by private equity firm KKR. The Gym Group trades on the London Stock Exchange, with its valuation fluctuating based on market sentiment. It typically trades at an EV/EBITDA multiple in the range of 7x-10x. Comparable transactions in the gym sector, including sales of private gym chains, have often occurred at similar or slightly higher multiples, suggesting GYM's valuation is broadly in line with private market values. However, without a public currency, it's impossible to declare a definitive value winner. From an accessibility standpoint, The Gym Group is the only option for public market investors, making it the de facto winner for those seeking exposure to this specific business model.
Winner: PureGym Ltd over The Gym Group plc. PureGym's victory is secured by its superior scale, market leadership in the UK, and a more ambitious international growth strategy. Its key strengths are its 370+ UK sites versus GYM's 230+, and its expansion into multiple international markets, which diversifies revenue. Its primary weakness is a higher debt load typical of private equity ownership, which introduces financial risk. For The Gym Group, its main strengths are its focused UK strategy and a more conservative balance sheet (Net Debt/EBITDA of ~1.9x). However, this focus is also its key weakness, limiting its growth potential and exposing it entirely to UK economic risks. PureGym's established leadership and broader growth runway make it the stronger competitor.
Basic-Fit is a European leader in the value fitness market and serves as an excellent public market comparable for The Gym Group, albeit on a much larger, multi-national scale. Headquartered in the Netherlands, Basic-Fit operates over 1,400 clubs across several European countries, including France, Spain, and the Benelux region. Its business model is fundamentally the same as GYM's: providing affordable, high-quality fitness with a focus on operational efficiency. The key difference is Basic-Fit's successful international expansion strategy, which has made it a dominant force in Europe. This scale provides significant competitive advantages in branding, procurement, and technology, making it a formidable benchmark for GYM's UK-centric operations.
In terms of Business & Moat, Basic-Fit has a significant advantage. Its scale is vastly superior, with 1,400+ clubs and 3.8 million+ members compared to GYM's 230+ clubs and ~900k members. This scale creates stronger economies of scale, allowing it to invest more in its mobile app and digital ecosystem, which can slightly increase customer switching costs. The brand Basic-Fit is the clear market leader in several large European countries. Like GYM, its model has low switching costs and faces few regulatory barriers. However, the sheer size of its operation and its proven ability to enter and scale in new countries is a durable advantage. The winner for Business & Moat is clearly Basic-Fit due to its immense scale advantage.
From a financial perspective, Basic-Fit's scale translates into much larger numbers. For 2023, Basic-Fit reported revenue of over €1.0 billion, dwarfing GYM's £204 million. Basic-Fit's revenue growth has been explosive, with a 5-year CAGR exceeding 20% (excluding pandemic impact) due to rapid club openings. Its club-level EBITDA margins are strong, often over 40%, though group-level margins are impacted by growth investments. Basic-Fit also carries more debt to fund its expansion, with a Net Debt/EBITDA ratio often hovering around 3.0x, which is higher than GYM's ~1.9x. While GYM's balance sheet is more conservative, Basic-Fit's superior revenue growth and proven profitability at scale are more compelling. Basic-Fit is the winner on Financials due to its demonstrated hyper-growth and powerful revenue generation.
Analyzing past performance, Basic-Fit has been a growth powerhouse. Its 5-year revenue CAGR consistently outpaces GYM's. This is a direct result of its aggressive club rollout strategy, opening hundreds of new sites annually. In terms of shareholder returns, Basic-Fit's stock (BFIT) has delivered strong performance since its IPO, although it has faced volatility related to interest rates and post-pandemic recovery. The Gym Group's TSR has been more muted and subject to UK-specific economic concerns. Basic-Fit's margin trend has been positive as it gains operating leverage. In contrast, GYM's margins have been recovering to pre-pandemic levels. The overall Past Performance winner is Basic-Fit, driven by its superior track record of growth in revenue, earnings, and club count.
Looking at future growth, Basic-Fit has a much larger runway. The company has a stated target of expanding to 3,000-3,500 clubs long-term, implying it is less than halfway to its goal. Its expansion into large, underpenetrated markets like France and Spain provides massive TAM. The Gym Group's growth, while solid, is confined to the more mature UK market with a target of 300+ clubs. Basic-Fit's growth is therefore higher quality due to its geographic diversification. Analyst consensus typically forecasts 15-20% annual revenue growth for Basic-Fit for the next few years, which is higher than the 10-15% expected for GYM. The winner for Future Growth is unequivocally Basic-Fit.
From a valuation standpoint, Basic-Fit has historically commanded a premium valuation due to its high-growth profile. Its EV/EBITDA multiple has often been in the 10x-15x range, higher than GYM's typical 7x-10x multiple. This premium is a direct reflection of its superior growth prospects and larger scale. For investors, the choice is between a higher-growth, higher-multiple stock (Basic-Fit) and a lower-growth, lower-multiple stock (GYM). While GYM may appear cheaper on a relative basis, Basic-Fit's premium is arguably justified by its proven international expansion model. The better value is subjective, but for a growth-oriented investor, Basic-Fit offers a more compelling risk-adjusted proposition, making it the winner here as well.
Winner: Basic-Fit N.V. over The Gym Group plc. Basic-Fit is the superior company due to its massive scale, proven international growth engine, and dominant position in the European market. Its key strengths are its 1,400+ club network and a clear path to doubling that footprint, providing a long runway for growth. Its main weakness is higher leverage (Net Debt/EBITDA of ~3.0x) needed to fund this rapid expansion. The Gym Group is a solid, well-run business, but its key weakness is its UK-centric focus, which fundamentally limits its growth potential compared to Basic-Fit. While GYM's more conservative balance sheet is a strength, it is not enough to overcome the vastly superior growth and scale offered by its European counterpart.
Planet Fitness is the behemoth of the low-cost gym industry, primarily operating in the United States with a franchise-driven model. Comparing it to The Gym Group highlights the difference in scale, business model, and market maturity. With over 2,500 locations and more than 19.0 million members, Planet Fitness is exponentially larger than GYM. Its "Judgement Free Zone" branding is iconic and has successfully captured a massive segment of the casual fitness user market. While GYM owns and operates its locations, Planet Fitness's franchise model creates a capital-light, high-margin business that is fundamentally different and more scalable. This comparison underscores GYM's position as a regional player versus a global industry leader.
From a Business & Moat perspective, Planet Fitness is in a different league. Its brand is a significant moat; the Planet Fitness name is synonymous with affordable, non-intimidating fitness in the US. Its franchise model creates powerful network effects and economies of scale, with franchisees benefiting from national marketing campaigns and standardized operations. With over 2,500 locations, its scale is unmatched. Switching costs for customers are low, similar to GYM, but the brand loyalty is stronger. The franchise agreements create a long-term, recurring, and high-margin revenue stream for the parent company. The winner for Business & Moat is Planet Fitness by a landslide due to its iconic brand, capital-light franchise model, and immense scale.
Financially, Planet Fitness exhibits the strength of its franchise model. It generates high-margin revenue from franchise fees and equipment sales to its franchisees. For 2023, it reported total revenue of approximately $1.1 billion with adjusted EBITDA margins often exceeding 40%, which is higher than GYM's corporate-level margins. Because it doesn't fund the build-out of most gyms itself, its Return on Invested Capital (ROIC) is exceptionally high. However, the company does use debt, with a Net Debt/EBITDA ratio that can be high, sometimes exceeding 5.0x. GYM's owner-operator model results in lower margins and ROIC but also historically lower leverage (~1.9x). Despite the higher debt, Planet Fitness's business model is far more profitable and less capital-intensive at the corporate level, making it the clear winner on Financials.
In terms of past performance, Planet Fitness has been a story of consistent growth for over a decade. Its 5-year revenue and EPS CAGR have been consistently in the double digits, driven by new franchise openings and rising same-store sales (system-wide sales). Its stock (PLNT) was a top performer for years post-IPO, delivering substantial shareholder returns, though it has faced recent headwinds. GYM's performance has been more volatile and tied to the UK economy and pandemic recovery. Planet Fitness's margin trend has been consistently strong, while GYM's is still recovering. The winner for Past Performance is Planet Fitness due to its long-term track record of predictable, capital-light growth and superior shareholder returns over a multi-year period.
For future growth, Planet Fitness still sees a long runway, with a long-term target of over 4,000 locations in the US alone, plus international opportunities it is just beginning to explore. Its growth is driven by its franchisees' ability and willingness to expand. The Gym Group's growth is dependent on its own ability to fund and open new sites in the UK. Planet Fitness's TAM is significantly larger, and its model allows for faster, less capital-intensive expansion. Analyst consensus for Planet Fitness points to continued double-digit earnings growth. The winner for Future Growth is Planet Fitness due to its larger addressable market and franchise-led expansion model.
Valuation-wise, Planet Fitness has always commanded a premium valuation, reflecting its high-quality, high-margin business model. Its P/E ratio has often been above 30x, and its EV/EBITDA multiple has been in the 15x-20x range. This is significantly higher than GYM's P/E of 15x-20x and EV/EBITDA of 7x-10x. The valuation gap is justified by Planet Fitness's superior profitability (EBITDA margins >40%), higher ROIC, and capital-light growth model. While GYM is statistically cheaper, it is a lower-quality business from a financial model perspective. An investor is paying a premium for a much stronger, more scalable business in Planet Fitness. The better value is subjective, but the quality of the Planet Fitness model makes its premium justifiable.
Winner: Planet Fitness, Inc. over The Gym Group plc. Planet Fitness is the decisively stronger company, built on a superior, capital-light franchise model that has allowed it to achieve immense scale and profitability. Its key strengths are its iconic brand, 19.0 million members, and high-margin, recurring franchise revenues. Its primary risk is its reliance on franchisee health and its high valuation, which leaves little room for error. The Gym Group, while a successful operator, has a fundamentally more challenging, capital-intensive owner-operator model. Its strength is its focused execution in the UK market, but its weakness is its limited scale and growth potential compared to the global leader. The vast difference in business model quality and scale makes Planet Fitness the clear winner.
JD Sports Fashion plc is not a direct fitness pure-play but a major indirect competitor through its rapidly growing JD Gyms division. As a FTSE 100 retail powerhouse, JD Sports has deep pockets and extensive experience in building consumer brands, which it is leveraging to disrupt the UK gym market. JD Gyms competes in the same low-cost segment as The Gym Group but often with a slightly more premium feel, offering better equipment and facilities at a similar price point. The comparison is one of a focused pure-play (GYM) versus a small but aggressive division within a massive, well-capitalized conglomerate. JD's ability to cross-promote and fund expansion through its profitable retail business presents a significant threat to The Gym Group.
Regarding Business & Moat, the comparison is complex. The Gym Group's moat is its operational focus and brand recognition exclusively in the fitness space. JD Gyms benefits from the halo effect of the hugely powerful JD Sports master brand, which resonates strongly with a young, fashion-conscious demographic. This provides a built-in marketing advantage. In terms of scale, JD Gyms is smaller than GYM, with around 80 locations, but it is expanding rapidly. The key moat for JD Gyms is the financial backing and operational expertise of its parent company, which has £1.6 billion in cash and equivalents. This allows it to invest heavily in high-spec facilities without the same financial constraints as GYM. The winner for Business & Moat is JD Sports (JD Gyms) because its parent company's financial strength represents a formidable barrier that a standalone company like GYM cannot match.
Financially, we cannot isolate JD Gyms' performance as it is embedded within JD Sports' total revenue of over £10 billion. However, we can infer its strength from the parent company's resources. JD Sports has significantly higher revenue, profitability, and cash generation than The Gym Group. GYM, as a standalone entity, has a transparent financial structure with revenue of £204 million and net debt of £145 million. JD Sports has a net cash position, giving it immense flexibility. While GYM's financial discipline is commendable for its size, it simply cannot compete with the balance sheet of a company like JD Sports. The ability to fund aggressive expansion and potentially operate JD Gyms as a loss-leader to drive brand loyalty makes it a dangerous competitor. The winner on Financials is JD Sports.
For past performance, this is an apples-to-oranges comparison. JD Sports has a long history of delivering exceptional growth and shareholder returns, becoming a dominant force in sports fashion retail. The Gym Group's performance has been solid but more cyclical and impacted by the pandemic. The growth of the JD Gyms division itself has been very rapid, going from zero to ~80 clubs in a few years, a faster rollout pace than GYM has often achieved. While we lack specific financial data for the gym division, the parent company's track record of successful execution in a competitive consumer market speaks volumes. The winner for Past Performance is JD Sports due to its outstanding long-term success as a public company.
In terms of future growth, JD Gyms has aggressive expansion plans within the UK, directly competing with The Gym Group for new sites and members. Its growth is backed by a parent company that can easily fund this expansion. The Gym Group's growth is constrained by its own cash flow generation and access to capital markets. Furthermore, JD can create a powerful ecosystem, potentially bundling gym memberships with retail offers to its millions of customers, a significant competitive advantage. While GYM has a clear growth plan to reach 300+ sites, JD's potential to scale rapidly and integrate its offering is a greater long-term opportunity. The winner for Future Growth is JD Sports (JD Gyms).
Valuation is not a direct comparison. The Gym Group trades as a standalone gym operator, with its value based on its specific prospects. JD Sports' valuation is primarily driven by its global retail operations. However, the presence of JD Gyms as a growth vector could contribute to the parent company's overall multiple. An investor cannot get pure-play exposure to JD Gyms. From a practical standpoint, an investor bullish on the UK low-cost gym market can only choose GYM. However, the threat posed by JD's entry likely puts a cap on the valuation multiple the market is willing to award to The Gym Group, as it increases the competitive risk. Therefore, from a risk-adjusted perspective, the competitive threat from JD makes GYM a riskier proposition than it would be otherwise.
Winner: JD Sports Fashion plc (JD Gyms) over The Gym Group plc. JD Gyms, backed by the financial and brand power of its parent company, represents a superior competitive force. Its key strengths are its access to capital for aggressive expansion, a powerful brand that appeals to a key demographic, and the potential to create a retail-fitness ecosystem. Its main weakness is its smaller current scale (~80 gyms) in the fitness market. The Gym Group's strength is its singular focus and operational expertise in the gym sector. However, its significant weakness is its constrained financial resources compared to a competitor for whom the gym business is a strategic initiative funded by a multi-billion-pound retail empire. This imbalance of resources makes JD a disruptive long-term threat that GYM will struggle to counter.
Xponential Fitness offers a starkly different business model, focusing on boutique fitness franchises rather than large, low-cost gyms. It operates a portfolio of specialized brands like Club Pilates, Pure Barre, and StretchLab. The comparison with The Gym Group is one of business model philosophy: Xponential's high-margin, capital-light franchise model versus GYM's capital-intensive, owner-operator model. Xponential targets a different customer segment, one willing to pay premium prices for specialized, class-based experiences. This contrast highlights the fragmentation of the fitness industry and shows how different models can succeed by targeting distinct consumer needs. Xponential's success demonstrates the appeal of specialized fitness, a trend that could potentially draw higher-value customers away from traditional gyms.
From a Business & Moat perspective, Xponential's model is arguably stronger. It operates nearly 3,000 studios globally across ten different brands. Its moat comes from its diversified portfolio of brands, which reduces reliance on any single fitness trend, and its capital-light franchise model, which facilitates rapid global expansion. Switching costs are higher for its customers, who are often loyal to a specific brand or instructor, compared to the anonymous, no-contract environment of GYM. While GYM's scale in the UK is a strength, Xponential's business model is inherently more scalable and profitable at the corporate level, with recurring, high-margin franchise royalty streams. The winner for Business & Moat is Xponential Fitness due to its superior capital-light model and diversified brand portfolio.
Financially, Xponential's franchise model delivers impressive metrics. For 2023, it reported revenue of ~$300 million, with very high adjusted EBITDA margins often in the 35-40% range, derived from franchise fees. Its Return on Invested Capital (ROIC) is significantly higher than GYM's because it does not own the physical studios. GYM's model is asset-heavy, requiring large investments in property leases and equipment, which leads to lower margins and ROIC. Xponential also carries debt, but its recurring revenue model makes this more manageable. GYM's revenue of £204 million is comparable, but the quality of that revenue is lower from a margin and capital-intensity perspective. The winner on Financials is Xponential Fitness due to its high-margin, asset-light financial profile.
Looking at past performance, Xponential has been a high-growth story, driven by the rapid sale of new franchises and strong studio performance. Since its IPO in 2021, the company has expanded its studio count and system-wide sales at a rapid pace, with revenue growth often exceeding 25-30% annually. Its stock (XPOF) performed well initially but has faced significant volatility and short-seller scrutiny, creating high risk for shareholders. The Gym Group's growth has been more modest and its shareholder returns have been inconsistent. Despite the recent stock volatility, Xponential's operational growth has been more impressive. The winner for Past Performance is Xponential Fitness based on its superior operational growth metrics.
For future growth, Xponential has a vast runway. Its boutique model can penetrate markets where a large-box gym wouldn't fit, and it is still in the early stages of international expansion. The company aims to have over 10,000 studios long-term. This TAM is arguably larger and more fragmented than the market for low-cost gyms. The Gym Group's growth is limited to finding ~1,000 square meter sites in the UK. Xponential's diverse brand portfolio also allows it to capture emerging fitness trends. Analyst consensus projects continued strong revenue growth for Xponential, outpacing that of The Gym Group. The winner for Future Growth is clearly Xponential Fitness.
From a valuation perspective, Xponential, like other high-growth franchisors, has typically traded at a premium multiple. Its EV/EBITDA has been in the 10x-15x range, and its P/E ratio has also been high. This is a premium to The Gym Group's 7x-10x EV/EBITDA multiple. The premium reflects its asset-light model, higher margins, and faster growth. However, the stock has been de-rated recently due to market concerns, making its valuation appear more reasonable. For an investor, XPOF offers higher growth but also higher risk associated with its franchise model and recent controversies. GYM is a more straightforward, lower-growth but potentially safer investment. Given the recent risks, GYM might be seen as better value today for a risk-averse investor, but Xponential's model has a higher ceiling.
Winner: Xponential Fitness, Inc. over The Gym Group plc. Xponential's victory is based on its superior business model, which is more scalable, more profitable, and less capital-intensive. Its key strengths are its diversified portfolio of nearly 3,000 franchised studios, high-margin royalty revenues, and a massive global growth runway. Its primary weakness and risk stem from recent short-seller reports questioning its franchise health, which has created significant stock price volatility. The Gym Group is a solid, traditional operator, but its owner-operator model is fundamentally weaker in terms of financial returns and scalability. While GYM may be a less volatile investment, Xponential's innovative multi-brand platform positions it as the stronger long-term competitor in the broader fitness industry.
Frasers Group, the retail empire controlled by Mike Ashley, competes with The Gym Group through its Everlast Gyms brand and the gyms acquired from DW Fitness First. Similar to JD Sports, this is a case of a massive, diversified conglomerate entering the fitness space. Frasers Group's strategy appears to be integrating fitness into its broader 'elevation' strategy, creating retail and wellness destinations. Everlast Gyms often operate within or alongside Frasers' retail stores (like Sports Direct). This model leverages existing real estate and cross-promotes fitness services to a massive retail customer base, posing a unique and well-funded threat to pure-play operators like The Gym Group.
From a Business & Moat perspective, Frasers Group's key advantage is its vast ecosystem. It owns a huge property portfolio, iconic brands (Everlast, Sports Direct), and has a customer base of millions. This creates a moat that GYM cannot replicate. By integrating gyms into its retail footprint, Frasers can lower real estate costs and drive footfall to its stores. The Everlast brand is globally recognized in boxing and fitness. While the Everlast Gyms network is still small (around 60 locations including former DW sites), the financial might and strategic vision of Frasers Group give it a powerful platform. The winner for Business & Moat is Frasers Group due to its immense financial resources and synergistic retail-fitness model.
Financially, comparing the two is challenging. Frasers Group is a behemoth with over £5.5 billion in annual revenue and is highly profitable with a strong net cash balance sheet. The Gym Group is a small-cap company with £204 million in revenue and £145 million in net debt. Frasers can fund the entire expansion of its gym division from a rounding error in its cash flow. This financial disparity is the core of the competitive threat. Frasers can afford to invest in top-tier facilities and potentially undercut competitors on price to gain market share, absorbing any initial losses. For an investor, GYM's financial position is far more precarious because it must fund its own growth while fending off a competitor with virtually unlimited capital. The winner on Financials is Frasers Group by an astronomical margin.
In terms of past performance, Frasers Group has a long, albeit controversial, history of delivering value for shareholders through shrewd acquisitions and aggressive operational management. Its core retail business has proven resilient. The Gym Group's performance has been that of a growth company in a single sector, with the associated volatility. Frasers' foray into the gym market is more recent, but its acquisition of DW Fitness First and the rollout of Everlast Gyms show a commitment to executing its strategy. Given the long-term track record of value creation and operational execution of the parent company, the winner for Past Performance is Frasers Group.
For future growth, Frasers' 'elevation' strategy provides a unique growth vector. The plan to create integrated fitness and retail hubs is an innovative concept that could redefine the gym landscape. This provides a growth narrative that is arguably more compelling than GYM's straightforward plan to open more of the same type of clubs. Frasers can convert its existing retail space into gyms, potentially accelerating its rollout schedule and lowering costs. While The Gym Group has a proven model, its growth path is more predictable and perhaps more limited. The winner for Future Growth is Frasers Group due to the transformative potential of its integrated ecosystem strategy.
Valuation is not a direct comparison. Frasers Group's valuation is based on its entire retail and brand portfolio. The Gym Group's is a pure-play on its gym operations. However, the competitive actions of Frasers directly impact the perceived risk and therefore the valuation of GYM. The market is likely to apply a discount to GYM's multiple to account for the threat of a well-capitalized and aggressive competitor like Frasers. An investor cannot buy into Everlast Gyms directly, but the strategic threat it poses makes The Gym Group a riskier investment than it would be in a market with only like-for-like competitors.
Winner: Frasers Group plc (Everlast Gyms) over The Gym Group plc. Frasers Group is the stronger competitive entity due to its overwhelming financial superiority and its innovative strategic vision for integrating fitness and retail. Its key strengths are its £1 billion+ cash pile, extensive property portfolio, and globally recognized brands like Everlast and Sports Direct. Its weakness in the gym space is its relatively small current footprint and lack of a long track record as a gym operator. The Gym Group's strength is its deep experience and singular focus on running low-cost gyms. However, this focus is also its critical vulnerability, as it lacks the resources to defend its market share against a competitor that can afford to play a different, longer, and more expensive game. The strategic mismatch in financial power makes Frasers the clear victor.
Based on industry classification and performance score:
The Gym Group operates a simple, effective low-cost fitness model that is popular with consumers. Its primary strength lies in its established UK scale as the number two operator, providing brand recognition and operational efficiencies. However, the company has a very weak economic moat, characterized by low customer switching costs, intense price competition, and a capital-intensive business model. With powerful, deep-pocketed competitors like PureGym, JD Sports, and Frasers Group aggressively expanding, The Gym Group's long-term position is precarious. The investor takeaway is mixed, acknowledging a well-run business facing significant and growing competitive threats.
As the second-largest low-cost operator in the UK, the company has meaningful scale that provides brand recognition and operational advantages, though it is still significantly smaller than its main rival.
With 233 sites and 850,000 members at the end of 2023, The Gym Group has achieved significant scale within its core UK market. This size provides tangible benefits, including national brand awareness which lowers customer acquisition costs, and better purchasing power with equipment suppliers. Its average of approximately 3,650 members per location demonstrates its ability to attract a high volume of customers to each site, which is crucial for the profitability of the high-fixed-cost model.
However, this scale is not dominant. Its closest competitor, PureGym, is substantially larger with over 370 UK locations and 1.9 million members, giving it a superior scale advantage. Furthermore, when compared to European leader Basic-Fit (1,400+ clubs) or US leader Planet Fitness (2,500+ clubs), The Gym Group is a relatively small, regional player. While its scale is a clear strength within its own context and one of the pillars of its business, it doesn't constitute a protective moat against these larger or better-funded competitors. Nonetheless, being a strong number two is a valuable position.
The 'no-contract' model is a key selling point but also a core weakness, leading to inherently high member churn and low switching costs, requiring constant spending to acquire new customers.
A central feature of The Gym Group's model is the lack of fixed-term contracts, which offers customers maximum flexibility. However, this flexibility is a double-edged sword, as it results in very low switching costs and, consequently, high membership churn. The company does not disclose its churn rate, but industry estimates for this model are often between 40-50% annually. This means a significant portion of the membership base must be replaced each year, necessitating continuous marketing expenditure just to maintain current levels.
This high churn prevents the build-up of a stable, predictable recurring revenue base in the same way a subscription business with annual contracts might. While the company aims to improve engagement through its app and premium tiers, there is no evidence to suggest it has solved the high-churn problem inherent to the low-cost, no-contract model any better than its direct competitors. This structural weakness keeps customer acquisition costs permanently high and represents a significant vulnerability.
The company has virtually no power to raise core membership prices due to intense competition, and relies on tiered memberships to discreetly increase average revenue per member.
The fundamental value proposition of The Gym Group is its low price, which severely limits its ability to implement broad price increases. The UK low-cost gym market is characterized by fierce price competition, meaning any significant price hike would likely lead to members immediately switching to rivals like PureGym or JD Gyms. This lack of pricing power is a major structural weakness of the business model.
To combat this, the company has successfully implemented a tiered membership strategy. Its 'LIVE IT' tier, priced at a premium, offers extra perks and has helped lift the Average Revenue Per Member per Month (ARPMM) to £21.31 in the second half of 2023. While this is a smart operational tactic, it is not a substitute for true pricing power. It is a workaround that underscores the company's inability to increase prices on its core offering. Because the business cannot pass on inflationary cost pressures to its customers through headline price rises, its margins are perpetually at risk.
The company is attempting to increase ancillary revenue through premium membership tiers, but this stream remains a small part of the overall business and is not a significant profit driver.
The Gym Group's business is overwhelmingly reliant on standard membership fees. While the company has made positive strides with its 'LIVE IT' premium tier, which reached a penetration rate of 32.2% of members at the end of 2023, ancillary revenue is not yet a core strength. This tier helps lift the Average Revenue Per Member (ARPM), but it does not fundamentally change the business model's dependence on high membership volume at low prices. Other potential ancillary streams like personal training or merchandise are not material contributors.
Compared to boutique fitness models like Xponential Fitness, where specialized classes and services are the entire business, GYM's ancillary efforts are minor. The success of the premium tier is a positive operational development, but it's more of a defensive tactic to raise revenue without raising headline prices, which would be impossible in the hyper-competitive market. Because this revenue stream is not yet substantial enough to create a competitive advantage or significantly boost margins, this factor is a weakness.
The Gym Group owns and operates all its locations, meaning it has no high-margin royalty revenue and must fund all expansion with its own capital, a significant weakness compared to franchised peers.
This factor is a clear weakness because The Gym Group's business model is 100% corporate-owned. It does not franchise its gyms, and therefore generates no royalty income. While this gives the company full control over its brand and operations, it comes at a great cost. The owner-operator model is highly capital-intensive, as The Gym Group is responsible for the full cost of leasing, fitting out, and equipping every new gym, which constrains its growth to the pace at which it can generate or raise capital.
In contrast, global industry leaders like Planet Fitness and Xponential Fitness utilize a capital-light franchise model. This allows them to expand much more rapidly while generating high-margin, recurring royalty fees. The Gym Group's reliance on its own balance sheet for growth puts it at a fundamental strategic disadvantage in terms of scalability and return on invested capital. This structural choice makes the business inherently less profitable and slower-growing than its franchise-based counterparts.
The Gym Group shows a mixed but risky financial profile. The company is successful at generating cash, reporting a strong free cash flow of £62.1 million in its latest fiscal year, far exceeding its net income of £4.4 million. However, this is overshadowed by an extremely high debt load of £401.8 million and razor-thin profitability, with a net margin of just 1.94%. The company's very low liquidity, shown by a current ratio of 0.16, adds another layer of risk. The investor takeaway is negative due to the precarious balance sheet and weak profitability, despite strong cash generation.
The company excels at converting its operations into cash, generating significantly more free cash flow (`£62.1 million`) than its reported net income (`£4.4 million`).
The Gym Group demonstrates impressive cash-generating ability. In its latest fiscal year, it produced £95.1 million in operating cash flow (OCF) and £62.1 million in free cash flow (FCF). This is substantially higher than its net income of £4.4 million, indicating a very strong cash conversion rate. This is largely driven by significant non-cash expenses like depreciation and amortization, which amounted to £54 million. The FCF margin is a robust 27.44%.
The deferred revenue balance, listed as 'Current Unearned Revenue', stands at £15.8 million, representing prepaid memberships that provide a reliable source of near-term cash flow. This strong cash generation is a critical strength, providing the necessary funds for capital expenditures and debt service in a capital-intensive business. This performance is a clear positive for the company's operational health.
Despite a nearly perfect gross margin, high operating costs decimate profitability, resulting in a very thin net profit margin of just `1.94%`.
The Gym Group's margin structure reveals a business with high fixed costs that limit profitability. The Gross Margin is exceptionally high at 98.72% because the direct costs of providing gym services are minimal. However, this advantage is quickly eroded by substantial operating expenses. Selling, General & Administrative (SG&A) expenses were £139.6 million, a significant portion of the £226.3 million in revenue.
As a result, the Operating Margin is only 10.47%, and after accounting for hefty interest expenses, the final Profit Margin is a razor-thin 1.94%. This indicates that the company's operating leverage is not currently working in its favor; revenue growth is not translating effectively to the bottom line. For a business to be considered financially healthy, it needs to demonstrate an ability to earn a more substantial profit on its sales.
Extremely high debt levels and critically low liquidity create significant financial risk, making the company vulnerable to any operational or economic setbacks.
The company's balance sheet is a major area of concern. Total debt stands at £401.8 million against a cash balance of just £3 million, resulting in net debt of £398.8 million. The Debt/EBITDA ratio is high at 5.17, signaling a heavy debt burden relative to earnings. Interest coverage (EBIT / Interest Expense) is alarmingly low at 1.14x (£23.7M / £20.7M), meaning nearly all operating profit is consumed by interest payments, leaving very little margin for safety.
Liquidity is also in a critical state. The Current Ratio is 0.16 (£12.5M in current assets vs. £77.6M in current liabilities), and the Quick Ratio is even lower at 0.05. These figures are well below healthy levels (typically above 1.0) and indicate a potential inability to meet short-term obligations without relying on external financing or future cash flows. This combination of high leverage and poor liquidity makes the company's financial position precarious.
Although overall revenue is growing, a lack of detailed data on key metrics like same-store sales and revenue per member prevents a full assessment of the underlying health of its club economics.
The Gym Group reported total revenue growth of 10.93% to £226.3 million, which is a positive indicator of business expansion and demand. However, the provided financial data does not offer a breakdown of this revenue into its core components, such as membership revenue versus ancillary revenue (e.g., personal training, vending). Key performance indicators for a gym business, such as same-store sales growth, average revenue per member (ARPM), or average unit volume (AUV), are also not available.
Without these crucial metrics, it is impossible to properly analyze the health and sustainability of the company's revenue streams. We cannot determine if growth is coming from opening new locations or from improving performance at existing ones. This lack of transparency is a significant weakness for investors trying to understand the fundamental economics of the business.
The company generates very low returns on its investments, indicating that it is not using its capital efficiently to create value for shareholders.
The company's returns on capital are weak, highlighting inefficient use of its asset base. The Return on Equity (ROE) was 3.39% in the last fiscal year, a very low figure that is unlikely to satisfy investors' expectations for returns. Similarly, Return on Assets (ROA) was 2.56% and Return on Capital Employed (ROCE) was 4.7%. These metrics suggest that the company's significant investments in property and equipment are not generating adequate profits.
The Asset Turnover ratio is also low at 0.39, which means the company generates only £0.39 of sales for every pound of assets it owns. While the EBITDA Margin of 21.34% appears healthy, the poor returns after interest and taxes show that the company's capital structure, burdened by debt, prevents it from delivering strong shareholder returns.
The Gym Group's past performance tells a story of a dramatic post-pandemic recovery but with significant downsides for shareholders. While revenue has strongly rebounded from £80.5 million in 2020 to £226.3 million in 2024 and the company is profitable again, this recovery was fueled by actions that hurt existing investors. Specifically, the number of shares increased by over 12% during this period, diluting ownership and capping per-share returns. Compared to larger peers like Basic-Fit, its growth is slower and geographically limited to the UK. The investor takeaway is mixed; the business has proven resilient, but its history of shareholder dilution is a major red flag.
Although specific metrics are unavailable, strong revenue growth from `£80.5 million` to `£226.3 million` over five years indicates a successful track record of expanding locations and growing membership.
While direct data on membership and location count is not provided in the financials, the company's revenue trajectory serves as a strong proxy for its growth record. Revenue more than doubled from £80.5 million in FY2020 to £226.3 million in FY2024, a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of approximately 29.5%. Such strong top-line growth in a membership-based business is impossible without successfully adding new gyms and attracting more members. Competitor analysis confirms GYM operates over 230 sites and is targeting 300+, which supports the narrative of consistent unit expansion. This historical growth demonstrates a clear product-market fit and an ability to execute its expansion strategy within the UK market.
While earnings have been volatile and only recently returned to profitability, the company has demonstrated a strong and consistently growing ability to generate cash from its operations.
The Gym Group's performance on this factor is a tale of two metrics. Earnings per share (EPS) have been inconsistent, swinging from a deep loss of -£0.23 in FY2020 to a small profit of £0.02 in FY2024. This reflects the difficult operating environment and the journey back to profitability. However, the company's cash flow delivery has been a significant strength. Operating Cash Flow (OCF) remained positive even during the worst of the pandemic and grew impressively from £15.3 million in FY2020 to £95.1 million in FY2024. Similarly, Free Cash Flow (FCF) recovered from -£10.2 million to a robust £62.1 million in the same period. This strong cash generation ability is a positive signal about the underlying health and efficiency of the business model, even if bottom-line profits have taken longer to recover.
The company's margins have shown a strong and consistent recovery trend since 2020, though net profit margin remains very thin.
The Gym Group has demonstrated a clear and positive trend of margin improvement over the past five years. After collapsing during the pandemic, with operating margins hitting a low of -40.99% in FY2020, they have systematically recovered, reaching 10.47% in FY2024. The EBITDA margin has followed a similar trajectory, expanding from -11.3% to 21.34%. This steady improvement reflects restored membership levels, pricing power, and disciplined cost management as the business scaled back up. While the recovery is a significant achievement, the net profit margin in FY2024 was still very low at 1.94%, indicating that the company has little room for error and remains sensitive to rising costs, such as interest expenses.
The company has not returned capital to shareholders via dividends or buybacks; instead, it has consistently diluted them by issuing new shares to fund the business.
Over the past five years, The Gym Group's approach to capital has favored corporate needs over shareholder returns, resulting in significant dilution. The company does not pay a dividend and has engaged in minimal share repurchases, with only a small £3.5 million buyback in FY2024. In stark contrast, the company has repeatedly issued new shares, causing the outstanding share count to increase from 157 million in FY2020 to 177 million by FY2024. This means each share represents a smaller piece of the company than it did before. This strategy, while necessary to survive the pandemic and fund growth, has been detrimental to per-share metrics and overall shareholder returns, which have lagged the operational recovery of the business.
The stock has a history of high volatility and poor market cap performance, with significant declines in three of the last five years, suggesting a rocky ride for investors.
The historical experience for a shareholder in The Gym Group has been turbulent. The company's market capitalization growth has been extremely erratic, recording large swings including a -57.04% drop in FY2022 followed by a 40.57% gain in FY2024. This reflects the market's fluctuating confidence in its recovery and the broader economic outlook. While its beta of 0.92 suggests its volatility is in line with the market, this figure doesn't capture the large, company-specific drawdowns investors have endured. Past performance indicates that holding the stock requires a high tolerance for risk and an acceptance of significant price swings, which is often a reflection of its thin margins and sensitivity to consumer spending.
The Gym Group's future growth hinges almost entirely on expanding its physical footprint within the UK. The company has a clear and proven strategy of opening new low-cost gyms, targeting an eventual estate of over 300 sites, which underpins expectations for steady revenue growth. However, this UK-centric focus is also its greatest weakness, as the company faces intense and growing competition from better-capitalized rivals like PureGym, JD Gyms, and Frasers Group. Unlike European leader Basic-Fit, The Gym Group has no international expansion plans, limiting its long-term potential. The investor takeaway is mixed: while near-term growth from new sites is predictable, the long-term outlook is constrained by a limited addressable market and significant competitive threats.
The Gym Group's app primarily functions as a utility to support its physical gyms, lacking a standalone, asset-light digital revenue stream that could drive significant growth.
The company provides a mobile app for members to book classes, track visits, and access workouts. However, this digital offering is an extension of the physical membership, not a separate subscription service designed to generate high-margin, incremental revenue. Unlike companies that have built successful paid digital fitness platforms, The Gym Group's strategy is to use technology to enhance the in-gym experience. While a functional app is now a basic expectation in the industry, it does not position the company to capitalize on the digital fitness trend as a primary growth driver. Competitors like Basic-Fit are investing more heavily in creating a comprehensive digital ecosystem to increase member engagement. Without a clear strategy to monetize digital content separately, this area represents a missed opportunity for asset-light expansion.
The company has a proven ability to increase average revenue per member through strategic price adjustments and successfully upselling members to its premium 'LIVE IT.' tier.
A key component of The Gym Group's growth model is increasing the yield from its existing membership base. Management has successfully executed this strategy by implementing modest price increases on its headline membership and driving adoption of its premium 'LIVE IT.' tier, which offers multi-site access and other perks for a higher monthly fee. In 2023, average revenue per member per month increased by 8.2% to £18.84, demonstrating effective yield management. This ability to generate 'like-for-like' growth is crucial, especially as the estate matures. It provides a reliable, capital-efficient source of revenue growth that complements the expansion of new sites. This focus on pricing and mix is a clear strength and a core part of the ongoing investment case.
The primary driver of the company's future growth is its clear and well-defined plan to expand its gym footprint across the UK, with a visible pipeline of new sites.
The Gym Group's investment thesis is fundamentally built on its store rollout strategy. The company has a stated target of reaching 300+ locations, representing significant growth from its current base of ~230 sites. Management provides annual guidance for net new openings (typically 10-15 per year) and has a proven track record of identifying and opening profitable locations. For FY2024, the company guided for 10-12 new openings, underpinning revenue growth expectations. This physical expansion is the engine of the company's medium-term growth, directly driving increases in membership, revenue, and profit. While the ultimate size of the market is finite, the clarity and execution of this rollout plan is the most compelling aspect of its future growth story.
The company has a corporate wellness program, but it is not a core part of its growth strategy and remains a minor contributor to revenue and membership.
The Gym Group offers corporate memberships, providing businesses with a wellness solution for their employees. While this creates a potential channel for acquiring members with potentially higher retention rates, it is not a significant focus of the company's public strategy or a material driver of its growth. The company does not disclose specific metrics like B2B revenue percentage or corporate account numbers, suggesting it is not a key performance indicator. The growth story is overwhelmingly centered on opening new sites for the general public. Compared to competitors who may have more developed B2B platforms, The Gym Group's offering appears to be a supplementary feature rather than a strategic pillar. The lack of scale and focus in this area means it does not provide a competitive advantage or a meaningful runway for future growth.
The company's complete focus on the UK market severely limits its long-term growth potential compared to peers who have successfully expanded internationally.
The Gym Group's strategy is exclusively centered on the UK. It has no international locations and has not announced any plans for overseas expansion or master franchise agreements. This stands in stark contrast to its main competitors. PureGym has expanded into several countries, including the US and Switzerland, while Basic-Fit has built a dominant 1,400+ club empire across Europe. This lack of international ambition is the single largest constraint on The Gym Group's long-term growth ceiling. Once it reaches saturation in the UK market (estimated at 300-350 sites), its growth will slow dramatically. By ignoring international markets, the company forgoes a significantly larger total addressable market and the benefits of geographic diversification, making it a purely domestic play in a globalizing industry.
As of November 20, 2025, The Gym Group plc appears to be fairly valued with significant underlying risks. Based on a price of £135.00, the stock's valuation presents a mixed picture. While the Trailing Twelve Months (TTM) Free Cash Flow (FCF) yield is exceptionally high at over 25%, suggesting potential undervaluation, this is offset by a high TTM P/E ratio of 33.13 and considerable balance sheet leverage (Net Debt/EBITDA of 4.83). The stock is currently trading in the lower third of its 52-week range, indicating recent weak market sentiment. The investor takeaway is neutral to cautious; the attractive cash flow is countered by substantial debt levels and weak earnings multiples, warranting a careful assessment of risk.
The EV/Sales ratio is not low enough to be considered a clear bargain, especially when weighed against the company's significant debt.
With an EV/Sales (TTM) ratio of 2.68, The Gym Group does not screen as a deep value stock. For a company with 10.9% revenue growth in its latest fiscal year and an EBITDA margin of 21.3%, this multiple might seem reasonable in a vacuum. However, the enterprise value (EV) of £631M is heavily skewed by ~£400M of net debt. For the equity to be attractive, the multiple would need to be lower to compensate for the high financial risk transferred from debt holders to equity investors.
Extremely high leverage and razor-thin interest coverage present a significant financial risk, suggesting the stock should trade at a discount.
The Gym Group's balance sheet carries a substantial amount of risk. The Net Debt/EBITDA ratio (TTM) stands at a high 4.83, indicating that it would take nearly five years of current earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization to pay back its net debt. More concerning is the interest coverage ratio; with TTM EBIT of £23.7M and interest expense of £20.7M (latest annual), the coverage is just 1.14x. This wafer-thin margin means that even a small decline in operating profit could make it difficult for the company to service its debt, a critical risk for investors. The Current Ratio of 0.16 also signals very low liquidity.
High P/E multiples, both on a trailing and forward basis, suggest the stock is expensive relative to its earnings power and expected growth.
The stock's TTM P/E ratio of 33.13 is significantly higher than the average for the UK Hospitality industry. A high P/E is often justified by high growth expectations, but the Forward P/E of 43.13 implies that analysts expect earnings per share to decline in the next fiscal year. This combination of a high current multiple and negative expected growth is a red flag for value-oriented investors. The EV/EBITDA multiple of 7.64 is more reasonable, but the earnings-based valuation is poor.
The company does not currently return cash to shareholders through dividends or buybacks; in fact, the share count has been increasing.
The Gym Group plc does not pay a dividend, and there is no evidence of a share buyback program. Instead, the Buyback Yield Dilution is -4.38%, indicating that the number of shares outstanding has increased, diluting existing shareholders' ownership. For investors seeking income or shareholder yield as a component of total return, this stock offers no support. The lack of cash returns suggests that capital is being fully reinvested in the business or used to manage its high debt load.
The stock shows an exceptionally strong Free Cash Flow (FCF) yield, which is a powerful indicator of potential undervaluation if sustainable.
This is the company's strongest valuation pillar. Based on current data, the FCF Yield is 25.24%, and the Price to FCF ratio is a very low 3.96. This means that for every pound invested in the stock, the company generates over 25p in free cash flow, a very high return. This robust cash generation provides the company with financial flexibility for debt reduction or future growth initiatives. While the sustainability of the 27.4% FCF margin seen in FY2024 is questionable, the underlying cash-generating capability of the business model appears solid.
The Gym Group's business model is highly sensitive to the health of the UK economy. As a provider of a non-essential service, it is vulnerable to downturns where consumers cut back on discretionary spending. Persistent inflation and the ongoing cost-of-living crisis reduce disposable income, making it difficult for the company to raise membership prices without losing customers. Furthermore, the UK's low-cost gym market is nearing saturation. Fierce competition from rivals like PureGym and JD Gyms puts constant pressure on pricing and market share, limiting organic growth. This competitive landscape, combined with the structural threat from flexible at-home fitness platforms, means the company must continually fight to retain its members and justify its value proposition.
A key vulnerability for the company is its balance sheet. As of late 2023, The Gym Group reported a net debt of £69.9 million. This level of borrowing makes the business susceptible to higher interest rates, which increases the cost of servicing this debt and directly reduces profitability. High debt restricts financial flexibility, potentially slowing down investments in new sites or gym upgrades, which are crucial for staying competitive. The company's profitability is also exposed to significant cost pressures. Rising energy bills, escalating property rents, and increasing staff wages can squeeze margins. If these costs rise faster than the company can increase its prices or membership base, its financial performance will suffer.
The company's low-cost, no-contract model is a core part of its appeal, but it also creates high member churn. The Gym Group must constantly spend on marketing to replace departing members, an expensive exercise that becomes even harder during an economic slump. A key operational challenge is maintaining high occupancy and encouraging members to upgrade to its premium 'LIVE IT.' offering to boost revenue per member. Future growth is also heavily reliant on successfully opening new gyms. This expansion strategy carries significant execution risk, as poor site selection can lead to underperforming locations that become a drain on resources. Any slowdown in finding and securing affordable, high-quality sites could hinder growth and disappoint investor expectations.
Click a section to jump