General Mills vs Mondelez International
GIS 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 GIS and MDLZ compare
Mondelez International is the larger company, worth 4.5 times as much as General Mills ($82.9B against $18.3B).
Mondelez International grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.0% versus −4.5% for General Mills).
Mondelez International keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 10.2% compared with −4.9% at General Mills.
Both pay dividends: General Mills yields 7.1% and Mondelez International 3.1%.
Mondelez International scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 7 for General Mills), 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 | GIS | MDLZ |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $18.3B | $82.9B |
| Share price | $34.29 | $64.94 |
| Change, 1 year | −26.4% | 12.3% |
| Change, 5 years | −45.3% | 4.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.04 | 0.29 |
| Employees | 30K | 91K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 7 | 14 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Health score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Dividend score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 20.5× |
| P/S | 1.0× (better) | 2.1× |
| P/B | 2.5× (better) | 3.1× |
| EV/EBITDA | 90.1× | 15.0× (better) |
| P/FCF | 11.9× (better) | 22.7× |
| FCF yield | 8.4% (better) | 4.4% |
| Fair value | $50.01 | $62.90 |
| Margin of safety | 31.4% (better) | −3.2% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −4.5% | 6.0% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 53.1% (better) | 7.7% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −131% | 15.5% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −131% | 18.7% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | −5.2% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 33.6% | 34.3% (better) |
| Operating margin | −1.1% | 13.7% (better) |
| Net margin | −4.9% | 10.2% (better) |
| FCF margin | 8.5% | 9.2% (better) |
| Return on equity | −10.6% | 15.5% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −0.75% | 9.0% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.83 | 0.82 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 37.68 | 2.93 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 9.2× |
| Current ratio | 0.70 (better) | 0.62 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.93 | 2.50 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 7.1% (better) | 3.1% |
| Payout ratio | – | 63.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 3.9% | – |
| Buyback yield | 0.00% | 1.6% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 7.1% (better) | 4.7% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 87.8% | 86.9% |
| Held by insiders | 0.48% | 0.22% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$1.0M (better) | −$8.7M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | 7.7% | 2.6% |
Go deeper
- GIS stock overview
- GIS income statement
- GIS 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.