Mission Produce vs Seneca Foods
AVO and SENEA side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How AVO and SENEA compare
Seneca Foods is the larger company, worth 1.2 times as much as Mission Produce ($1.2B against $1.0B).
On earnings, Seneca Foods is cheaper: it trades at 10.2× trailing earnings, against 394× for Mission Produce.
Seneca Foods grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (12.1% versus −6.2% for Mission Produce).
Seneca Foods keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 6.6% compared with 0.12% at Mission Produce.
Seneca Foods scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 5 for Mission Produce), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | AVO | SENEA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.0B | $1.2B |
| Share price | $11.83 | $176.47 |
| Change, 1 year | −6.9% | 49.2% |
| Change, 5 years | −38.8% | 288% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.40 | 0.30 |
| Employees | 3,800 | 2,995 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 5 | 19 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 394× | 10.2× (better) |
| P/S | 0.8× | 0.7× (better) |
| P/B | 1.4× (better) | 1.5× |
| EV/EBITDA | 21.8× | 6.3× (better) |
| P/FCF | – | 7.4× |
| PEG | – | 0.07 |
| FCF yield | −0.22% | 13.6% (better) |
| Fair value | $7.53 | $283.74 |
| Margin of safety | −57.1% | 37.8% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −6.2% | 12.1% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 10.0% (better) | 2.5% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −95.9% | 98.4% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −94.4% | 101% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 3.3% | 3.9% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 11.4% | 13.2% (better) |
| Operating margin | 1.8% | 8.2% (better) |
| Net margin | 0.12% | 6.6% (better) |
| FCF margin | −0.17% | 9.0% (better) |
| Return on equity | 0.24% | 16.1% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 1.4% | 15.3% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.52 | 0.02 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 5.41 | 0.02 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 2.2× | 11.1× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.92 | 2.60 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.07 | 4.19 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 9 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Payout ratio | – | 0.02% |
| Buyback yield | 0.96% | 1.2% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 0.96% | 1.2% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 46.8% | 60.9% |
| Held by insiders | 46.3% | 5.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $82.6M (better) | −$323K |
| Short interest, % of float | 12.2% | – |
Go deeper
- AVO stock overview
- AVO income statement
- AVO valuation and score
- SENEA stock overview
- SENEA income statement
- SENEA valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.