Flowers Foods vs Mondelez International
FLO and MDLZ 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 FLO and MDLZ compare
Mondelez International is the larger company, worth 62 times as much as Flowers Foods ($82.9B against $1.3B).
On earnings, Mondelez International is cheaper: it trades at 20.5× trailing earnings, against 24.1× for Flowers Foods.
Mondelez International grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.0% versus 2.5% for Flowers Foods).
Mondelez International keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 10.2% compared with 1.1% at Flowers Foods.
Both pay dividends: Flowers Foods yields 11.9% and Mondelez International 3.1%.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | FLO | MDLZ |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.3B | $82.9B |
| Share price | $6.27 | $64.94 |
| Change, 1 year | −48.4% | 12.3% |
| Change, 5 years | −75.2% | 4.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.24 | 0.29 |
| Employees | 10K | 91K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 | 14 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 | 2 |
| Health score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Dividend score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 24.1× | 20.5× (better) |
| P/S | 0.3× (better) | 2.1× |
| P/B | 1.0× (better) | 3.1× |
| EV/EBITDA | 9.5× (better) | 15.0× |
| P/FCF | 4.3× (better) | 22.7× |
| FCF yield | 23.0% (better) | 4.4% |
| Fair value | $11.10 | $62.90 |
| Margin of safety | 43.5% (better) | −3.2% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 2.5% | 6.0% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 3.7% | 7.7% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −74.9% | 15.5% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −75.0% | 18.7% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −11.1% | −5.2% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 48.6% (better) | 34.3% |
| Operating margin | 2.7% | 13.7% (better) |
| Net margin | 1.1% | 10.2% (better) |
| FCF margin | 5.9% | 9.2% (better) |
| Return on equity | 4.0% | 15.5% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 3.2% | 9.0% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.27 | 0.82 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 5.23 | 2.93 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 1.8× | 9.2× (better) |
| Current ratio | 0.77 (better) | 0.62 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.86 | 2.50 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 11.9% (better) | 3.1% |
| Payout ratio | 336% | 63.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | 17 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 4.5% | – |
| Buyback yield | 0.29% | 1.6% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 12.2% (better) | 4.7% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 104% | 86.9% |
| Held by insiders | 7.0% | 0.22% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$3.9M (better) | −$8.7M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | 22.7% | 2.6% |
Go deeper
- FLO stock overview
- FLO income statement
- FLO valuation and score
- MDLZ stock overview
- MDLZ income statement
- MDLZ valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.