Celsius vs Monster Beverage
CELH and MNST side by side, both in beverages. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CELH and MNST compare
Monster Beverage is the larger company, worth 6.3 times as much as Celsius ($46.4B against $7.4B).
On earnings, Monster Beverage is cheaper: it trades at 21.9× trailing earnings, against 127× for Celsius.
Celsius grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (82.9% versus 20.4% for Monster Beverage).
Monster Beverage scores higher on the StockData Score (10 against 9 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 | MNST |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $7.4B | $46.4B |
| Share price | $29.12 | $47.34 |
| Change, 1 year | −52.6% | 42.2% |
| Change, 5 years | −19.2% | 107% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.54 | 0.48 |
| Employees | 1,497 | 6,891 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 10 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 2 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 127× | 21.9× (better) |
| P/S | 2.4× (better) | 5.0× |
| P/B | 6.1× | 5.0× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 37.6× | 15.3× (better) |
| P/FCF | 15.9× (better) | 22.1× |
| FCF yield | 6.3% (better) | 4.5% |
| Fair value | $14.88 | $45.02 |
| Margin of safety | −95.7% | −5.2% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 82.9% (better) | 20.4% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 80.7% (better) | 12.5% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −2.0% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −39.5% | 34.2% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 46.8% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 48.8% | 55.5% (better) |
| Operating margin | 5.3% | 29.2% (better) |
| Net margin | 4.2% | – |
| FCF margin | 15.2% | 22.8% (better) |
| Return on equity | 10.5% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 10.6% | 37.2% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.56 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.22 | – |
| Interest coverage | 3.0× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.80 | 3.73 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.97 | 17.16 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | – |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 0.17% (better) | 0.14% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.17% (better) | 0.14% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 65.9% | 136% |
| Held by insiders | 2.0% | 42.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $3.1M (better) | −$36.2M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 12.5% | 8.1% |
Go deeper
- CELH stock overview
- CELH income statement
- CELH valuation and score
- MNST stock overview
- MNST income statement
- MNST valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.