B&G Foods vs Seneca Foods
BGS and SENEA 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 BGS and SENEA compare
Seneca Foods is the larger company, worth 4.2 times as much as B&G Foods ($1.2B against $284M).
Seneca Foods grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (12.1% versus −2.7% for B&G Foods).
Seneca Foods keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 6.6% compared with −4.7% at B&G Foods.
B&G Foods pays a dividend yielding 16.3%; Seneca Foods does not pay one.
Seneca Foods scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 10 for B&G 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 | BGS | SENEA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $284M | $1.2B |
| Share price | $3.50 | $176.47 |
| Change, 1 year | −25.1% | 49.2% |
| Change, 5 years | −88.6% | 288% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.49 | 0.30 |
| Employees | 2,497 | 2,995 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 19 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 10.2× |
| P/S | 0.2× (better) | 0.7× |
| P/B | 0.8× (better) | 1.5× |
| EV/EBITDA | 17.9× | 6.3× (better) |
| P/FCF | 2.9× (better) | 7.4× |
| PEG | – | 0.07 |
| FCF yield | 35.0% (better) | 13.6% |
| Fair value | $13.74 | $283.74 |
| Margin of safety | 74.5% (better) | 37.8% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −2.7% | 12.1% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −1.5% | 2.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 98.4% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 101% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 3.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 21.8% (better) | 13.2% |
| Operating margin | 3.7% | 8.2% (better) |
| Net margin | −4.7% | 6.6% (better) |
| FCF margin | 5.6% | 9.0% (better) |
| Return on equity | −20.4% | 16.1% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 2.2% | 15.3% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 5.75 | 0.02 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 15.68 | 0.02 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 11.1× |
| Current ratio | 2.84 (better) | 2.60 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.14 | 4.19 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 9 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 16.3% | – |
| Payout ratio | – | 0.02% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | −16.7% | – |
| Buyback yield | – | 1.2% |
| Shareholder yield | 16.3% (better) | 1.2% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 57.3% | 60.9% |
| Held by insiders | 5.3% | 5.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$248K (better) | −$323K |
| Short interest, % of float | 18.4% | – |
Go deeper
- BGS stock overview
- BGS income statement
- BGS 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.