Conagra Brands vs General Mills
CAG and GIS 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 GIS compare
General Mills is the larger company, worth 2.6 times as much as Conagra Brands ($18.3B against $7.0B).
Conagra Brands grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (−1.8% versus −4.5% for General Mills).
General Mills keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of −4.9% compared with −17.0% at Conagra Brands.
Both pay dividends: Conagra Brands yields 6.0% and General Mills 7.1%.
Conagra Brands scores higher on the StockData Score (10 against 7 for General Mills), 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 | GIS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $7.0B | $18.3B |
| Share price | $14.57 | $34.29 |
| Change, 1 year | −16.2% | −26.4% |
| Change, 5 years | −55.3% | −45.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.15 | 0.04 |
| Employees | 17K | 30K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 (better) | 7 |
| Valuation score | 2 | 2 |
| Growth score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 0 | 0 |
| Health score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 5 | 5 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/S | 0.6× (better) | 1.0× |
| P/B | – | 2.5× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 90.1× |
| P/FCF | 7.9× (better) | 11.9× |
| FCF yield | 12.6% (better) | 8.4% |
| Fair value | $30.34 | $50.01 |
| Margin of safety | 52.0% (better) | 31.4% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −1.8% (better) | −4.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 0.17% | 53.1% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −324% | −131% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −326% | −131% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 23.8% | 33.6% (better) |
| Operating margin | −15.2% | −1.1% (better) |
| Net margin | −17.0% | −4.9% (better) |
| FCF margin | 7.8% | 8.5% (better) |
| Return on equity | – | −10.6% |
| Return on invested capital | – | −0.75% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 1.83 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 37.68 |
| Current ratio | 1.10 (better) | 0.70 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.04 | 1.93 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 6.0% | 7.1% (better) |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 6.2% (better) | 3.9% |
| Buyback yield | 0.64% (better) | 0.00% |
| Shareholder yield | 6.6% | 7.1% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 88.9% | 87.8% |
| Held by insiders | 0.78% | 0.48% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $896K (better) | −$1.0M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 8.3% | 7.7% |
Go deeper
- CAG stock overview
- CAG income statement
- CAG valuation and score
- GIS stock overview
- GIS income statement
- GIS valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.