Celsius vs National Beverage
CELH and FIZZ side by side, both in beverages. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CELH and FIZZ compare
Celsius is the larger company, worth 2.4 times as much as National Beverage ($8.4B against $3.4B).
On earnings, National Beverage is cheaper: it trades at 19.8× trailing earnings, against 37.1× for Celsius.
Celsius grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (49.1% versus −1.8% for National Beverage).
National Beverage keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 14.8% compared with 10.0% at Celsius.
National Beverage pays a dividend yielding 8.8%; Celsius does not pay one.
National Beverage scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 16 for Celsius), 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 | CELH | FIZZ |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $8.4B | $3.4B |
| Share price | $33.04 | $36.74 |
| Change, 1 year | −25.9% | 12.0% |
| Change, 5 years | 36.1% | −38.9% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.50 | 0.52 |
| Employees | 1,497 | 1,677 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 | 18 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 37.1× | 19.8× (better) |
| P/S | 2.6× (better) | 2.9× |
| P/B | 6.6× (better) | 9.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | 18.5× | 13.8× (better) |
| P/FCF | 31.1× | 21.2× (better) |
| PEG | – | 2.23 |
| FCF yield | 3.2% | 4.7% (better) |
| Fair value | $46.37 | $42.31 |
| Margin of safety | 28.7% (better) | 13.2% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 49.1% (better) | −1.8% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 80.7% (better) | 1.9% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 392% (better) | −5.9% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 709% (better) | −6.5% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 46.8% (better) | 1.1% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 47.6% (better) | 36.2% |
| Operating margin | 13.0% | 18.4% (better) |
| Net margin | 10.0% | 14.8% (better) |
| FCF margin | 8.5% | 13.7% (better) |
| Return on equity | 25.6% | 40.1% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 27.9% | 64.6% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.53 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.06 | – |
| Interest coverage | 8.7× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.97 | 2.39 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.58 | 14.10 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 8.8% |
| Payout ratio | – | 174% |
| Buyback yield | 0.15% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 0.15% | 8.8% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 65.9% | 26.3% |
| Held by insiders | 2.0% | 0.22% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $2.4M (better) | $7.9K |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 11.9% | 4.6% |
Go deeper
- CELH stock overview
- CELH income statement
- CELH valuation and score
- FIZZ stock overview
- FIZZ income statement
- FIZZ valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.