Celsius vs Zevia PBC
CELH and ZVIA side by side, both in beverages. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CELH and ZVIA compare
Celsius is the larger company, worth 80 times as much as Zevia PBC ($7.4B against $92.0M).
Celsius grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (82.9% versus 7.2% for Zevia PBC).
Celsius keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 4.2% compared with −5.3% at Zevia PBC.
Zevia PBC scores higher on the StockData Score (11 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 | ZVIA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $7.4B | $92.0M |
| Share price | $29.12 | $1.19 |
| Change, 1 year | −52.6% | −49.8% |
| Change, 5 years | −19.2% | −90.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.54 | 1.46 |
| Employees | 1,497 | 88 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 11 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 127× | – |
| P/S | 2.4× | 0.5× (better) |
| P/B | 6.1× | 2.1× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 37.6× | – |
| P/FCF | 15.9× (better) | 31.7× |
| FCF yield | 6.3% (better) | 3.2% |
| Fair value | $14.88 | $2.19 |
| Margin of safety | −95.7% | 45.6% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 82.9% (better) | 7.2% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 80.7% (better) | 7.9% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −2.0% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −39.5% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 46.8% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 48.8% (better) | 47.7% |
| Operating margin | 5.3% (better) | −5.7% |
| Net margin | 4.2% (better) | −5.3% |
| FCF margin | 15.2% (better) | 1.7% |
| Return on equity | 10.5% (better) | −18.7% |
| Return on invested capital | 10.6% (better) | −36.0% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.56 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.22 | – |
| Interest coverage | 3.0× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.80 | 1.90 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.97 (better) | 1.48 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 0.17% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 0.17% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 65.9% | 53.6% |
| Held by insiders | 2.0% | 27.8% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $3.1M (better) | −$11.9M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 12.5% | 1.9% |
Go deeper
- CELH stock overview
- CELH income statement
- CELH valuation and score
- ZVIA stock overview
- ZVIA income statement
- ZVIA valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.