Advertiser / Brand · Direct-to-Consumer (D2C) Brand · vs · Direct-to-Consumer (D2C) Brand
e.l.f. Beauty vs Glossier
Structured technology and market comparison · 2026
Direct Feature Comparison
e.l.f. Beauty · vs · GlossierConsumer beauty brand platform selling cosmetics and skincare.
Direct-to-consumer beauty brand with owned media and loyalty.
Analyze all overlapping signals and tech stacks for e.l.f. Beauty and Glossier
Compare mutual enterprise clients, monetization models, live market signals, and partner networks directly in the interactive Knowledge Graph.
Comparison Analysis
What is the main difference between e.l.f. Beauty and Glossier?
When comparing e.l.f. Beauty and Glossier, both platforms operate within the Display, Web & Mobile and Direct-to-Consumer (D2C) Brand ecosystem. e.l.f. Beauty is positioned as Consumer beauty brand platform selling cosmetics and skincare, whereas Glossier focuses on Direct-to-consumer beauty brand with owned media and loyalty. Decision-makers evaluate both solutions when orchestrating their commercial monetization and technology stack.
What are the top alternatives to e.l.f. Beauty and Glossier?
When evaluating e.l.f. Beauty and Glossier, enterprise buyers also consider other platforms in Display, Web & Mobile and Direct-to-Consumer (D2C) Brand. You can discover the full competitive landscape and evaluate other alternatives by viewing their respective footprint profiles on Polaris7.
How do the corporate scale, structure, and headquarters of e.l.f. Beauty and Glossier compare?
e.l.f. Beauty is headquartered in US (founded in 2004) with 501–1,000 employees. Glossier is based in US (founded in 2014) with 201–500 employees. Complete ownership, subsidiary trees, and corporate affiliations are documented across Polaris7.
Market Signals
Recent Market Signals & Activity: e.l.f. Beauty vs Glossier
Documented market movements, strategic partnerships, product releases, and regulatory developments mapped across Polaris7.
e.l.f. Beauty
Recent Signals
- ·Retail-NewsMetaverse Marketing
e.l.f. Cosmetics Expands to ZEPETO with Virtual Styling World
e.l.f. Cosmetics, a brand of e.l.f. Beauty, has launched its first virtual styling experience on the social platform ZEPETO, named 'Express your e.l.f.'. Users can customize avatars with digital beauty products and accessories inspired by the Power Grip product line. The initiative targets Generation Z, aiming to merge virtual identity with social interaction. ZEPETO claims over 400 million registered accounts and 15-20 million monthly active users, with around 70% belonging to Gen Z. Users can create and share photos and videos with e.l.f.-themed backgrounds, leveraging high avatar customization frequency. This move extends e.l.f.'s gaming strategy, complementing its presence on Roblox with 'Glow Up!' and Twitch. Financial details were not disclosed.
- e.l.f. Cosmetics launched 'Express your e.l.f.', a virtual styling world on ZEPETO.
- ZEPETO has over 400 million registered accounts and 15-20 million monthly active users.
- Around 70% of ZEPETO users are Generation Z.
- ·SEC APIfinancials
10-Q Financial Filing Analysis for e.l.f. Beauty (2026-08-06)
For the first quarter of fiscal 2027 ended June 30, 2026, e.l.f. Beauty delivered strong operating results, with net sales increasing 36% year-over-year to $479.4 million, fueled by a 129% surge in e-commerce channels and 16% retailer growth. Gross margin expanded dramatically to 83% from 69% in the prior-year period, substantially aided by a $50.1 million tariff refund under the invalidated IEEPA regime recognized as a reduction in cost of sales. Operating income expanded 110% to $102.4 million despite SG&A costs increasing 43% to $280.3 million and recording a $16.1 million upward revaluation of the rhode acquisition earnout liability. Net income surged 100% to $66.6 million ($1.12 diluted EPS), supported by strong pricing/mix, international expansion, and robust operational execution.
- Net sales grew 35.5% year-over-year to $479.4 million for Q1 FY2027, driven by a 129% rise in e-commerce revenue and international growth to $111.3 million.
- Gross margin reached 83.2% compared to 69.1% in Q1 FY2026, benefiting by ~1,050 bps from a $50.1 million IEEPA tariff refund credited to cost of sales.
- The rhode acquisition contingent consideration liability was remeasured upward to $80.8 million, resulting in a $16.1 million operating charge due to sustained revenue outperformance.
- ·SEC APIfinancials
8-K Financial Filing Analysis for e.l.f. Beauty (2026-08-24)
On August 20, 2026, e.l.f. Beauty, Inc. held its 2026 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, where shareholders voted on four standard corporate governance proposals. All management-backed initiatives passed successfully, ensuring board continuity and affirming shareholder confidence in corporate governance and executive compensation structures. Stockholders elected four Class I director nominees—Matt Farrell, Kenny Mitchell, Gayle Tait, and Maureen Watson—to serve three-year terms expiring at the 2029 Annual Meeting. In addition, shareholders approved the advisory resolution on executive compensation, selected an annual frequency for future say-on-pay advisory votes, and ratified the appointment of Deloitte & Touche LLP as the company's independent auditor for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2027.
- Elected four Class I directors (Matt Farrell, Kenny Mitchell, Gayle Tait, and Maureen Watson) with terms expiring at the 2029 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
- Approved named executive officer compensation on an advisory basis and selected a 1-year frequency for future advisory 'say-on-pay' votes.
- Ratified Deloitte & Touche LLP as the independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2027.
Glossier
Recent Signals
No recent market signals documented for Glossier in the current tracking window.
Compare their exact ecosystem overlaps.
Explore all deep relationships in Polaris7. Discover exactly which mutual clients, integrated technologies, and overlapping partners e.l.f. Beauty and Glossier share across the market ecosystem.
Unlock full capability matrix, client overlaps & technology stacks