Conagra Brands vs McCormick
CAG and MKC 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 MKC compare
McCormick is the larger company, worth 1.8 times as much as Conagra Brands ($12.7B against $7.0B).
McCormick grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (13.2% versus −1.8% for Conagra Brands).
McCormick keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 19.4% compared with −17.0% at Conagra Brands.
Both pay dividends: Conagra Brands yields 6.0% and McCormick 4.1%.
McCormick scores higher on the StockData Score (21 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 | MKC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $7.0B | $12.7B |
| Share price | $14.57 | $47.29 |
| Change, 1 year | −16.2% | −25.9% |
| Change, 5 years | −55.3% | −41.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.15 | 0.41 |
| Employees | 17K | 14K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 21 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 2 |
| Dividend score | 5 | 5 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 8.6× |
| P/S | 0.6× (better) | 1.7× |
| P/B | – | 1.8× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 13.8× |
| P/FCF | 7.9× (better) | 13.7× |
| PEG | – | 1.66 |
| FCF yield | 12.6% (better) | 7.3% |
| Fair value | $30.34 | $90.06 |
| Margin of safety | 52.0% (better) | 47.5% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −1.8% | 13.2% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 0.17% | 4.1% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −324% | 91.6% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −326% | 91.3% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 1.1% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 23.8% | 39.1% (better) |
| Operating margin | −15.2% | 13.4% (better) |
| Net margin | −17.0% | 19.4% (better) |
| FCF margin | 7.8% | 12.0% (better) |
| Return on equity | – | 23.4% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 6.9% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.72 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 3.59 |
| Interest coverage | – | 4.6× |
| Current ratio | 1.10 (better) | 0.66 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.04 | 1.80 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 6.0% (better) | 4.1% |
| Payout ratio | – | 34.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 16 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 6.2% | 7.7% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 0.64% (better) | 0.13% |
| Shareholder yield | 6.6% (better) | 4.2% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 88.9% | 89.8% |
| Held by insiders | 0.78% | 1.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $896K (better) | −$24.9M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 8.3% | – |
Go deeper
- CAG stock overview
- CAG income statement
- CAG valuation and score
- MKC stock overview
- MKC income statement
- MKC valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.