Bunge Global vs Tyson Foods
BG and TSN side by side, both in food and kindred products. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BG and TSN compare
Bunge Global and Tyson Foods are about the same size, with market caps of $18.6B and $20.1B.
On earnings, Bunge Global is cheaper: it trades at 16.2× trailing earnings, against 35.2× for Tyson Foods.
Bunge Global grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (55.5% versus 2.9% for Tyson Foods).
Bunge Global keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 1.2% compared with 1.0% at Tyson Foods.
Both pay dividends: Bunge Global yields 2.9% and Tyson Foods 3.6%.
Bunge Global scores higher on the StockData Score (10 against 9 for Tyson Foods), 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 | BG | TSN |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $18.6B | $20.1B |
| Share price | $96.64 | $57.04 |
| Change, 1 year | 0.56% | 12.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 4.0% | −30.1% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.25 | 0.35 |
| Employees | 34K | 133K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 (better) | 9 |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 16.2× (better) | 35.2× |
| P/S | 0.2× (better) | 0.4× |
| P/B | 1.1× | 1.1× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 10.6× | 10.4× (better) |
| P/FCF | – | 17.3× |
| FCF yield | −14.3% | 5.8% (better) |
| Fair value | $107.07 | $50.56 |
| Margin of safety | 9.7% (better) | −12.8% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 55.5% (better) | 2.9% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | – | 4.7% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −12.4% (better) | −26.8% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −36.0% | −26.0% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | −25.1% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 5.1% | 6.1% (better) |
| Operating margin | – | 2.3% |
| Net margin | 1.2% (better) | 1.0% |
| FCF margin | −2.8% | 2.1% (better) |
| Return on equity | 7.2% (better) | 3.2% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 3.6% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.03 | 0.44 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.70 | 2.76 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 3.1× |
| Current ratio | 1.50 (better) | 1.43 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.85 | 3.20 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.9% | 3.6% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 47.4% | 122% |
| Years of dividend growth | 4 | – |
| Shareholder yield | 2.9% | 3.6% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 95.6% | 73.7% |
| Held by insiders | 31.7% | 22.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$2.0M (better) | −$5.2M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 3 |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.9% | 3.2% |
Go deeper
- BG stock overview
- BG income statement
- BG valuation and score
- TSN stock overview
- TSN income statement
- TSN valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.