2026-08-12

On Holding (ONON) Stock Crashes 20% in Its Worst Day Ever - Why Rival Hoka Owner Deckers Only Fell 3% on the Same Tariff Story

Written & reviewed by the TradeSmrt editorial team · 2026-08-12

In this article

What Happened
What Happened at Deckers, and Why It Reacted So Differently
What to Take Away From This
FAQ
Sources

What Happened

On Holding (NYSE: ONON), the Swiss maker of On running shoes, had the worst single trading day in its history on Tuesday, August 11. Shares fell more than 20%, closing near $30.97 after opening around $38.78 the prior session - a one-day wipeout of roughly $2.7 billion in market value. The stock is now down close to 34% year-to-date in 2026, and its 52-week range has compressed to between $30.11 and $52.20, putting Tuesday's close within a few cents of a fresh low.

The trigger was On's second-quarter earnings report. On paper, the numbers weren't a disaster: revenue rose 21.6% on a constant-currency basis to CHF 850.3 million, and adjusted earnings per share of CHF 0.35 actually beat the CHF 0.34 analysts had penciled in. But revenue still landed below the roughly CHF 878-881 million Wall Street was modeling, and that miss came bundled with something the market found far more alarming: On cut its full-year revenue growth guidance to the "low 20% range," down from a prior forecast of at least 23%. A few percentage points of guidance might sound minor, but for a stock priced for aggressive, uninterrupted growth, it was enough to erase two years of gains in a single session.

The details underneath the headline number make the picture clearer. On's Americas segment - more than half of total revenue - grew just 13% in constant currency, a sharp deceleration from the 17% pace it posted in the first quarter. Wholesale orders in the US, where retail partners place bulk orders months in advance, came in soft, suggesting retailers themselves are turning cautious about how much On inventory they want to carry into the back half of the year. The one clear bright spot was On's own direct-to-consumer channel, where constant-currency sales jumped 34.3% and beat expectations in every region - evidence that end-consumer demand for the brand hasn't disappeared, even as its wholesale partners pull back.

Wall Street's response was swift. Goldman Sachs cut its price target on ONON to $42 from $46 while keeping a Buy rating, and Williams Trading cut its target to $32 from $38 while holding at Neutral. Across 29 analysts covering the stock, the consensus rating stayed at Buy, with an average price target implying roughly 38% upside from the crash-day close - a sign that most of the Street still views this as a growth-deceleration story rather than a broken-business story, even after the brutal one-day reaction.

What Happened at Deckers, and Why It Reacted So Differently

The comparison that makes this story worth understanding is Deckers Outdoor (NYSE: DECK), the owner of On's closest direct competitor in the premium running category, HOKA. Deckers reported its own first-quarter fiscal 2027 results on July 23, just under three weeks before On's report, and the market's reaction could hardly have been more different: DECK shares fell only around 3% the following session, a routine pullback rather than a historic drawdown.

The underlying numbers explain the gap. Deckers posted more than $1 billion in first-quarter revenue for the first time in company history, up 5.7% year-over-year. HOKA's own revenue grew 8% to $704 million - a real deceleration from the 22-25% growth pace HOKA had been running not long before, and UGG grew a modest 5% to $278 million. Deckers even guided full-year fiscal 2027 revenue to $5.86-5.91 billion, only high-single-digit growth, and its profit outlook of $7.35-7.50 per share landed slightly below the Street's $7.49 estimate. By the letter of the numbers, Deckers' growth deceleration was arguably just as real as On's.

So why did one stock crash 20% and the other slip 3%? Three things separate the reactions. First, magnitude of surprise: Deckers' growth slowdown had been increasingly visible for a couple of quarters and was already partly priced in, while On's guidance cut landed as a genuine shock after the company had reaffirmed a 23%-plus growth target as recently as its prior update. Second, channel mix: Deckers' softness showed up gradually across owned and wholesale channels together, while On's weakness was concentrated specifically in US wholesale - the channel investors watch most closely as a leading indicator, since retailers cutting orders today often foreshadows softer sell-through months from now. Third, valuation cushion: Deckers trades at a more moderate multiple built on a longer public track record and diversified brand portfolio (HOKA plus UGG plus Teva), while On's stock has carried a premium "best-in-class growth" valuation that leaves far less room for disappointment - the more a stock is priced for perfection, the harder it falls when guidance merely turns "good" instead of "great."

Both companies cited the same macro backdrop - new tariffs on imported footwear and components pressuring costs, plus a more cautious US consumer - as part of the story. That two companies selling into the identical macro environment, in the identical product category, can produce a 3% dip at one and a 20% crash at the other is itself the lesson: the macro backdrop sets the stage, but company-specific guidance credibility and starting valuation determine how violently a stock reacts once the news actually lands.

What to Take Away From This

A guidance cut hurts more than a revenue miss on its own. On actually beat on EPS, but the market almost entirely ignored that because the forward guidance change told investors more about what's coming next than a single quarter's results did.
Watch which channel is weakening, not just the topline number. On's direct-to-consumer sales grew over 34%, so the headline "revenue miss" masked a much more specific problem: wholesale partners in the US getting cautious. That distinction matters more for forecasting the next two quarters than the blended growth rate does.
Compare a stock's reaction to a same-sector peer facing the same macro pressure, not just to its own history. Deckers and On faced nearly identical tariff and consumer headwinds in the same eight-week window, yet their stock reactions differed by a factor of nearly seven - a gap almost entirely explained by how much "perfection" was priced into each stock beforehand.
A "growth stock" valuation is a double-edged sword. On's premium multiple magnified the fall the same way it had magnified prior gains; investors buying growth stories need to size positions with that asymmetry in mind, not just the growth rate itself.
Analyst price-target cuts after a crash aren't automatically a sell signal. Despite the historic drop, the Street's consensus on ONON stayed at Buy - a reminder to separate "this quarter disappointed" from "the long-term thesis is broken," and to check what specifically changed in the outlook before reacting to a single bad print.

FAQ

Because markets trade on forward expectations more than on the quarter that already happened. On's EPS beat was modest, but the company simultaneously cut its full-year revenue growth guidance from "at least 23%" to the "low 20% range" - a signal that the deceleration investors feared is now actually showing up in the order book, particularly in US wholesale.

Is On Holding's business actually in trouble, or is this an overreaction?

The direct-to-consumer numbers (up 34.3%) suggest genuine consumer demand for the brand is intact; the weakness is concentrated in wholesale order patterns, which can reflect retailer caution about inventory as much as end-demand softness. Most analysts kept Buy ratings after cutting price targets, suggesting the Street views this as a growth-rate reset rather than a broken business - though that view could change if wholesale weakness spreads over coming quarters.

Why did Deckers' stock barely react to a similar growth slowdown?

Deckers' deceleration had been building more gradually over previous quarters and was already partly reflected in its stock price and analyst models, while On's guidance cut arrived as a sharper, less-anticipated shock. Deckers also carries a more moderate "growth stock" valuation than On, which historically cushions the stock price against disappointing but not catastrophic results.

Sources

This article synthesizes and analyzes the reporting below in our own words - it is not a reproduction of the original text. For the latest figures, please refer to the original sources.

⚠️ This article is for informational purposes only and is not investment advice. Market conditions change constantly - always verify the latest data yourself before making any investment decision.