National Beverage vs Boston Beer
FIZZ and SAM side by side, both in beverages. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How FIZZ and SAM compare
National Beverage is the larger company, worth 1.5 times as much as Boston Beer ($3.4B against $2.2B).
National Beverage grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (−1.8% versus −3.7% for Boston Beer).
National Beverage keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 14.8% compared with −3.8% at Boston Beer.
National Beverage pays a dividend yielding 8.8%; Boston Beer does not pay one.
National Beverage scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 9 for Boston Beer), 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 | FIZZ | SAM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.4B | $2.2B |
| Share price | $36.74 | $219.16 |
| Change, 1 year | 12.0% | 8.9% |
| Change, 5 years | −38.9% | −52.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.52 | 0.74 |
| Employees | 1,677 | 2,543 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 18 (better) | 9 |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 19.8× | – |
| P/S | 2.9× | 1.2× (better) |
| P/B | 9.4× | 3.0× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 13.8× | – |
| P/FCF | 21.2× | 12.0× (better) |
| PEG | 2.23 | – |
| FCF yield | 4.7% | 8.3% (better) |
| Fair value | $42.31 | $260.56 |
| Margin of safety | 13.2% | 15.9% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −1.8% (better) | −3.7% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 1.9% | 2.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −5.9% (better) | −179% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −6.5% (better) | −181% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 1.1% (better) | −8.6% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 36.2% | 49.1% (better) |
| Operating margin | 18.4% (better) | −5.1% |
| Net margin | 14.8% (better) | −3.8% |
| FCF margin | 13.7% (better) | 9.7% |
| Return on equity | 40.1% (better) | −8.9% |
| Return on invested capital | 64.6% (better) | −14.0% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Current ratio | 2.39 (better) | 1.13 |
| Altman Z-score | 14.10 (better) | 4.02 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 8.8% | – |
| Payout ratio | 174% | – |
| Buyback yield | – | 5.6% |
| Shareholder yield | 8.8% (better) | 5.6% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 26.3% | 85.1% |
| Held by insiders | 0.22% | 25.8% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $7.9K (better) | $0 |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.6% | 21.4% |
Go deeper
- FIZZ stock overview
- FIZZ income statement
- FIZZ valuation and score
- SAM stock overview
- SAM income statement
- SAM valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.