Flowers Foods vs Simply Good Foods
FLO and SMPL 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 SMPL compare
Flowers Foods is the larger company, worth 1.2 times as much as Simply Good Foods ($1.3B against $1.1B).
Flowers Foods grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (2.5% versus −6.5% for Simply Good Foods).
Flowers Foods keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 1.1% compared with −11.5% at Simply Good Foods.
Flowers Foods pays a dividend yielding 11.9%; Simply Good Foods does not pay one.
Flowers Foods scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 9 for Simply Good Foods), 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 | FLO | SMPL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.3B | $1.1B |
| Share price | $6.25 | $12.64 |
| Change, 1 year | −45.0% | −34.2% |
| Change, 5 years | −76.7% | −67.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.22 | 0.45 |
| Employees | 10K | 282 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 (better) | 9 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Growth score | 1 | 1 |
| Performance score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 24.0× | – |
| P/S | 0.3× (better) | 0.8× |
| P/B | 1.0× | 0.8× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 9.5× | – |
| P/FCF | 4.3× (better) | 7.0× |
| FCF yield | 23.1% (better) | 14.3% |
| Fair value | $11.04 | $28.67 |
| Margin of safety | 43.4% | 55.9% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 2.5% (better) | −6.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 3.7% | 6.2% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −74.9% (better) | −250% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −75.0% (better) | −266% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −11.1% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 48.6% (better) | 32.6% |
| Operating margin | 2.7% (better) | −13.2% |
| Net margin | 1.1% (better) | −11.5% |
| FCF margin | 5.9% | 11.6% (better) |
| Return on equity | 4.0% (better) | −9.6% |
| Return on invested capital | 3.2% (better) | −7.8% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.27 | 0.24 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 5.23 | – |
| Interest coverage | 1.8× (better) | −8.4× |
| Current ratio | 0.77 | 5.57 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.86 | 2.01 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 11.9% | – |
| Payout ratio | 336% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 17 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 4.5% | – |
| Buyback yield | 0.29% | 19.4% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 12.2% | 19.4% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 104% | 99.0% |
| Held by insiders | 7.0% | 10.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$3.9M | $1.1M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 25.7% | 12.7% |
Go deeper
- FLO stock overview
- FLO income statement
- FLO valuation and score
- SMPL stock overview
- SMPL income statement
- SMPL valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.