B&G Foods vs Vital Farms
BGS and VITL 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 VITL compare
Vital Farms is the larger company, worth 1.4 times as much as B&G Foods ($389M against $284M).
Vital Farms grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (16.4% versus −2.7% for B&G Foods).
Vital Farms keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 0.02% compared with −4.7% at B&G Foods.
B&G Foods pays a dividend yielding 16.3%; Vital Farms does not pay one.
Vital Farms scores higher on the StockData Score (11 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 | VITL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $284M | $389M |
| Share price | $3.50 | $9.07 |
| Change, 1 year | −25.1% | −72.1% |
| Change, 5 years | −88.6% | −52.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.49 | 0.73 |
| Employees | 2,497 | 739 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 11 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/S | 0.2× (better) | 0.5× |
| P/B | 0.8× (better) | 1.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | 17.9× (better) | 37.4× |
| P/FCF | 2.9× | – |
| FCF yield | 35.0% (better) | −32.4% |
| Fair value | $13.74 | $8.41 |
| Margin of safety | 74.5% (better) | −7.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −2.7% | 16.4% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −1.5% | 28.8% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | −99.7% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | −104% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 39.8% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 21.8% | 28.1% (better) |
| Operating margin | 3.7% (better) | 0.04% |
| Net margin | −4.7% | 0.02% (better) |
| FCF margin | 5.6% (better) | −16.5% |
| Return on equity | −20.4% | 0.05% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 2.2% (better) | 0.07% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 5.75 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 15.68 | – |
| Interest coverage | – | 0.3× |
| Current ratio | 2.84 (better) | 1.10 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.14 | 2.96 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 16.3% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | −16.7% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 16.3% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 57.3% | 85.3% |
| Held by insiders | 5.3% | 39.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$248K (better) | −$3.5M |
| Short interest, % of float | 18.4% | 36.9% |
Go deeper
- BGS stock overview
- BGS income statement
- BGS valuation and score
- VITL stock overview
- VITL income statement
- VITL valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.