• Sundresses are a summer closet staple, so I tried on options at Gap, Banana Republic, and Old Navy.
• The Gap dress was too thin, and the Banana Republic option was a little out of my price range.
• Even though it was the least expensive, the Old Navy piece was my favorite.

Summer is in full swing, which means it's time for floral prints, bold colors, and short hemlines.

It's the perfect season to refresh your wardrobe with light, breezy styles, and in my opinion, there's no closet staple more practical or comfortable than a good sundress.

As someone who loves all things feminine and frilly, sundresses are a personal favorite. To find a new go-to for the season, I headed to three retailers that never miss when it comes to wearable fashion — Gap, Banana Republic, and Old Navy.

Here's how my search for the perfect sundress went.

Old Navy was my first stop.

I love Old Navy's trendy and accessible styles, so I was excited to spot the puff-sleeve linen-blend mini dress while browsing.

Although the dress comes in a few different colors and patterns, I chose the white option with a light-blue floral design.

The dress had a few quirks, but it was comfortable and flattering.

This dress looked nice on the rack, but I was even more pleased once I tried it on.

The silhouette of the dress fell nicely along my curves, which I found flattering. I also liked the structured square neckline, side pockets, and the buttons down the front.

However, I noticed that the thread on a couple of buttons was fraying slightly, which made me question whether it would hold up beyond the summer.

The material was comfortable and lightweight, made from a blend of 55% linen and 45% viscose rayon. That said, the fabric was a bit sheer, and I could see the outline of the pockets through the dress. So, I'd be a little concerned about it becoming see-through in direct sunlight.

Overall, though, I loved the dress and would wear it for multiple summer occasions. I would happily pay the $45 price, as it's a perfect style for weekend barbecues, brunches, and garden parties.

My next stop was Banana Republic, which offers more elevated pieces.

Considering Banana Republic's upscale aesthetic, I knew I could count on the brand for stylish resort wear finds.

I was immediately drawn to the linen-blend seamed bodice mini dress on the rack, thanks to its beautiful yellow hue and flattering A-line silhouette.

The dress was nice, but it was a little more than I was hoping to spend.

The color and pattern of the dress were bold yet elegant, and the deep-V-neckline added an eye-catching touch. The Banana Republic option was made from almost the same blend as the Old Navy dress — 55% linen and 45% rayon.

Overall, the design was lightweight and flattering, and I loved the subtle cinch at the waist and the pleating across the midsection.

However, my one gripe with this dress was the $120 price tag. Although it was nicely made and well-constructed, I wouldn't pay triple digits for it.

Lastly, I popped into Gap to try one more option.

Gap has pleasantly surprised me over the past few years with its versatile selection of basics and fashion-forward clothing.

Upon walking in, the flutter-sleeve tie-waist mini dress immediately grabbed my attention. The material seemed thinner than the others, but that's not necessarily a bad thing when it comes to staying cool in the peak of summer.

This option was flattering, but the fabric felt a bit flimsy.

I was pleasantly surprised by how this dress looked on me. I especially appreciated the adjustable waist tie, and I loved the V-neckline and flowy sleeves paired with the pleated hemline on the skirt.

It looked romantic yet modest, which would be appropriate for a range of summer events like family gatherings or bridal showers.

However, the delicate fabric, which turned out to be 100% rayon, seemed like it might easily rip or get damaged in the wash.

The Gap dress cost $55. It wasn't terribly overpriced, but I don't think the cost was fully justified considering the fabric composition.

The Old Navy dress turned out to be my favorite.

I'd wear every option I tried on, but the Old Navy sundress turned out to be my favorite for its overall design, fit, and comfort.

It was the most affordable, yet also super flattering, and I could easily see myself wearing it for multiple occasions.

• Some iconic rom-coms have shocking real-life age gaps between love interests.
• Iconic duos like Julia Roberts and Richard Gere and Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling aren't close in age.
• Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence are over 15 years apart and have played love interests.

You may not realize that a movie set in New York was actually filmed in Canada or that your favorite leading lady has a different hair color in real life.

And on-screen couples you thought were just a few months or years apart might have a bigger real-life age gap than you thought.

Here are some of the most surprising real-life age differences between love interests in popular romantic comedies.

"Silver Linings Playbook" love interests Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence are over 15 years apart.

In the film, Cooper plays a divorcé who falls for a widow, played by Lawrence.

It's unclear exactly how old the characters are supposed to be, but at the time of the premiere, Cooper was 37 and Lawrence was 22.

Meg Ryan and Billy Crystal, who famously starred in "When Harry Met Sally," are 14 years apart.

Although the characters are meant to be the same age as the film moves through 12 years of their lives, Crystal and Ryan are over a decade apart. 

The Nora Ephron classic first hit theaters in 1989, when Crystal was 41 and Ryan was 27.

Julia Roberts and Richard Gere, who starred in rom-coms like "Pretty Woman," are 18 years apart.

When the film premiered, Gere was 40 and Roberts was 22.

The two also starred opposite each other in "Runaway Bride" in 1999 when Gere was 49 and Roberts was 31.

Audrey Hepburn and Gregory Peck were 13 years apart when they starred in "Roman Holiday."

The cult-classic romantic comedy "Roman Holiday" starred Hepburn and Peck as love interests.

Hepburn was 24 and Peck was 37 when the film came out.

"While You Were Sleeping" stars Bill Pullman and Sandra Bullock are over 10 years apart.

In the 1995 film, Bullock played Lucy and Pullman was Jack. At the time of the premiere, Bullock was 30 (almost 31) and Pullman was 41.

Cameron Diaz and Dermot Mulroney, who are engaged in "My Best Friend's Wedding," are nine years apart.

In the film, the two play love interests in their late 20s. But when the film premiered in the summer of 1997, Mulroney was 33 and Diaz was 24.

Matthew McConaughey and Kate Hudson are over nine years apart, and they starred opposite each other in "How to Lose a Guy in 10 days."

When the 2003 film premiered, Hudson was 23 turning 24 and McConaughey had recently turned 33.

Frequent love interests Drew Barrymore and Adam Sandler are eight years apart.

Barrymore and Sandler have starred as love interests in a few films.

When their first movie together, "The Wedding Singer," premiered in 1998, Sandler was 31 and Barrymore was a week from turning 23.

They later worked together on "50 First Dates" in 2004 and "Blended" in 2014. 

Diane Keaton and Woody Allen, who played love interests in "Annie Hall," have a 10-year age difference.

When Keaton played the titular role of Annie Hall, she was much younger than her love interest, played by controversial filmmaker and actor Allen.

The film premiered in April 1977 when Allen was 41 and Keaton was 31.

Repeat movie love interests Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone have an eight-year age difference.

When Stone and Gosling first appeared together in "Crazy, Stupid, Love" in 2011, she was 22 and he was 30.

They went on to reunite for "La La Land" in 2016. 

Renée Zellweger is eight years younger than both of her love interests in "Bridget Jones's Diary."

Zellweger isn't that close in age to either of her love interests from "Bridget Jones's Diary."

Funnily enough, Hugh Grant and Colin Firth were born a day apart (Grant is older), and they were both a little over 40 when the film premiered in 2001.

Zellweger was about a week away from turning 32 at the time. 

Patrick Dempsey and Amy Adams, who starred in "Enchanted," are also more than eight years apart in age.

The musical romantic comedy featured Adams and Dempsey as unlikely love interests.

When the movie premiered in 2007, Dempsey was almost 42 and Adams was 33.

This story was most recently updated on July 10, 2025.

Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now. Learn More »

Lululemon (NASDAQ: LULU) shares dropped roughly 20% in value last week after the company delivered an earnings report that included less enthusiastic earnings expectations for the year. While its revenues are still expected to be relatively in line with previous guidance, the added costs that tariffs will impose led management to dial back earnings estimates, causing the market to hit the stock pretty hard.

To be fair, Lululemon has historically been a fairly expensive stock, and companies need to produce solid results if they want to sustain higher valuations.

Lower guidance

Arguably the biggest factor impacting Lululemon shares right now is the guidance cut. Yes, the apparel retailer beat estimates for the first quarter, but management nonetheless reduced earnings per share (EPS) expectations for the year to a range of $14.58 to $14.78 compared to previous guidance of $14.95 to $15.15.

As with most things these days, the weaker outlook is largely due to President Donald Trump's tariffs. Clothing companies like Lululemon largely hire overseas subcontractors to do the manufacturing of their clothes, which puts them in the crosshairs of Trump's policies. When I wrote about Lululemon in April, I noted that the tariffs Trump was imposing on Vietnam would impact 40% of Lululemon's production. Though those new taxes are currently paused, the president set the tariff rate on imports from that country at 46%.

Image Source: Getty Images

Despite a 7% increase in revenue, Lululemon's earnings fell year over year in its fiscal 2025 first quarter. For the period, which ended May 4, net income was $314 million compared to $321 million a year earlier; a lower overall share count was responsible for its EPS growth. According to CNBC, comp sales increased a mere 1% compared to Wall Street's expectations for a 3% increase.

From what I can see, Lululemon has two main problems. Its costs of production will rise due to tariffs while the premium prices it charges for its goods could be putting a damper on its sales, especially in the United States, where recent Commerce Department reports have shown weak consumer spending growth.

Valuation

One positive that can be pointed out for the stock is its now-lower valuation. According to fullratio.com, Lululemon has historically averaged a P/E ratio of around 42. After the stock's latest pullback, investors can pick up shares for a mere 17 times earnings. Based on the low end of the company's new guidance for 2025, the stock is trading at roughly 18 times forward earnings. But are these valuations low enough to make the stock a buy?

Previously, my stance was that the market conditions Lululemon faces make it a stock to avoid for the time being. That's still my view. CFO Meghan Frank said that the company plans to make some "strategic" price increases on certain items to pass their tariff costs along to their customers. However, I don't see how the company can keep raising prices on what are already $100 leggings. Granted, Lululemon has really branched out into different categories, even offering golf-oriented apparel, but I still think that any price increases will be a problem at a time when U.S. consumers are tightening their belts. The combination of high tariffs and reduced consumer discretionary spending is going to pressure apparel brands like Lululemon and Nike (NYSE: NKE). Until those headwinds abate, there isn't going to be much momentum here.

As a final note, I would also add that Lululemon operates in a highly competitive area of the apparel industry. It's constantly vying for market share and consumer attention with the likes of Nike, Gap (NYSE: GAP), and others. In the end, prices do matter in that fight.

Should you invest $1,000 in Lululemon Athletica Inc. right now?

Before you buy stock in Lululemon Athletica Inc., consider this:

The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Lululemon Athletica Inc. wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.

Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $657,871!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $875,479!*

Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 998% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 174% for the S&P 500. Don’t miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor.

See the 10 stocks »

*Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025

David Butler has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Lululemon Athletica Inc. and Nike. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.