Conagra Brands vs Mondelez International
CAG and MDLZ 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 MDLZ compare
Mondelez International is the larger company, worth 12 times as much as Conagra Brands ($82.9B against $7.0B).
Mondelez International grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.0% versus −1.8% for Conagra Brands).
Mondelez International keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 10.2% compared with −17.0% at Conagra Brands.
Both pay dividends: Conagra Brands yields 6.0% and Mondelez International 3.1%.
Mondelez International 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 | MDLZ |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $7.0B | $82.9B |
| Share price | $14.57 | $64.94 |
| Change, 1 year | −16.2% | 12.3% |
| Change, 5 years | −55.3% | 4.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.15 | 0.29 |
| Employees | 17K | 91K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 14 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 2 |
| Dividend score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 20.5× |
| P/S | 0.6× (better) | 2.1× |
| P/B | – | 3.1× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 15.0× |
| P/FCF | 7.9× (better) | 22.7× |
| FCF yield | 12.6% (better) | 4.4% |
| Fair value | $30.34 | $62.90 |
| Margin of safety | 52.0% (better) | −3.2% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −1.8% | 6.0% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 0.17% | 7.7% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −324% | 15.5% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −326% | 18.7% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | −5.2% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 23.8% | 34.3% (better) |
| Operating margin | −15.2% | 13.7% (better) |
| Net margin | −17.0% | 10.2% (better) |
| FCF margin | 7.8% | 9.2% (better) |
| Return on equity | – | 15.5% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 9.0% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.82 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 2.93 |
| Interest coverage | – | 9.2× |
| Current ratio | 1.10 (better) | 0.62 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.04 | 2.50 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 6.0% (better) | 3.1% |
| Payout ratio | – | 63.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 6.2% | – |
| Buyback yield | 0.64% | 1.6% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 6.6% (better) | 4.7% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 88.9% | 86.9% |
| Held by insiders | 0.78% | 0.22% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $896K (better) | −$8.7M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 8.3% | 2.6% |
Go deeper
- CAG stock overview
- CAG income statement
- CAG valuation and score
- MDLZ stock overview
- MDLZ income statement
- MDLZ valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.