Brown Forman vs Constellation Brands
BF.B and STZ side by side, both in beverages. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BF.B and STZ compare
Constellation Brands is the larger company, worth 1.8 times as much as Brown Forman ($23.1B against $12.9B).
Brown Forman grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (−0.84% versus −4.3% for Constellation Brands).
Constellation Brands keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 20.9% compared with 18.4% at Brown Forman.
Both pay dividends: Brown Forman yields 3.3% and Constellation Brands 2.3%.
Brown Forman scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 14 for Constellation Brands), 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 | BF.B | STZ |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $12.9B | $23.1B |
| Share price | $28.04 | $135.33 |
| Change, 1 year | −0.64% | 3.3% |
| Change, 5 years | −61.4% | −39.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.59 | 0.54 |
| Employees | 4,900 | 9,400 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 18 (better) | 14 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 4 | 4 |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 18.1× | – |
| P/S | 3.3× | 2.5× (better) |
| P/B | 3.2× | 2.7× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 13.8× | 10.4× (better) |
| P/FCF | 13.9× | 12.6× (better) |
| FCF yield | 7.2% | 8.0% (better) |
| Fair value | $36.93 | $220.98 |
| Margin of safety | 24.1% | 38.8% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −0.84% (better) | −4.3% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 2.6% (better) | 1.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −14.6% | 57.4% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −13.4% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −4.0% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 60.7% (better) | 52.7% |
| Operating margin | 25.4% | 30.2% (better) |
| Net margin | 18.4% | 20.9% (better) |
| FCF margin | 23.6% (better) | 20.0% |
| Return on equity | 18.1% | 23.9% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 13.0% (better) | 12.3% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.62 (better) | 1.20 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.97 (better) | 3.20 |
| Interest coverage | 9.6× (better) | 8.1× |
| Current ratio | 3.26 (better) | 1.00 |
| Altman Z-score | 4.23 (better) | 2.80 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 3.3% (better) | 2.3% |
| Payout ratio | 59.1% | 36.8% |
| Years of dividend growth | 3 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 5.3% | – |
| Buyback yield | – | 3.4% |
| Shareholder yield | 3.3% | 5.6% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 47.6% | 84.8% |
| Held by insiders | 25.2% | 16.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$1.5M | −$1.0M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | – | 6.7% |
Go deeper
- BF.B stock overview
- BF.B income statement
- BF.B valuation and score
- STZ stock overview
- STZ income statement
- STZ valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.