Conagra Brands vs Flowers Foods
CAG and FLO 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 CAG and FLO compare
Conagra Brands is the larger company, worth 5.3 times as much as Flowers Foods ($7.1B against $1.3B).
Flowers Foods grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (2.5% versus −1.8% for Conagra Brands).
Flowers Foods keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 1.1% compared with −17.0% at Conagra Brands.
Both pay dividends: Conagra Brands yields 5.9% and Flowers Foods 11.9%.
Flowers Foods scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 10 for Conagra 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 | CAG | FLO |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $7.1B | $1.3B |
| Share price | $14.83 | $6.25 |
| Change, 1 year | −12.7% | −45.0% |
| Change, 5 years | −51.7% | −76.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.14 | 0.22 |
| Employees | 17K | 10K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 14 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 1 |
| Performance score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Health score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 5 | 5 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 24.0× |
| P/S | 0.6× | 0.3× (better) |
| P/B | – | 1.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 9.5× |
| P/FCF | 8.1× | 4.3× (better) |
| FCF yield | 12.4% | 23.1% (better) |
| Fair value | $30.45 | $11.04 |
| Margin of safety | 51.3% (better) | 43.4% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −1.8% | 2.5% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 0.17% | 3.7% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −324% | −74.9% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −326% | −75.0% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | −11.1% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 23.8% | 48.6% (better) |
| Operating margin | −15.2% | 2.7% (better) |
| Net margin | −17.0% | 1.1% (better) |
| FCF margin | 7.8% (better) | 5.9% |
| Return on equity | – | 4.0% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 3.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 1.27 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 5.23 |
| Interest coverage | – | 1.8× |
| Current ratio | 1.10 (better) | 0.77 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.05 | 1.86 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 5.9% | 11.9% (better) |
| Payout ratio | – | 336% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 17 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 6.2% (better) | 4.5% |
| Buyback yield | 0.63% (better) | 0.29% |
| Shareholder yield | 6.5% | 12.2% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 88.9% | 104% |
| Held by insiders | 0.78% | 7.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $1.1M (better) | −$3.9M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 9.4% | 25.7% |
Go deeper
- CAG stock overview
- CAG income statement
- CAG valuation and score
- FLO stock overview
- FLO income statement
- FLO valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.