Keurig Dr Pepper vs Constellation Brands
KDP and STZ side by side, both in beverages. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How KDP and STZ compare
Keurig Dr Pepper is the larger company, worth 2.1 times as much as Constellation Brands ($48.8B against $23.1B).
Keurig Dr Pepper grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (27.5% versus −4.3% for Constellation Brands).
Constellation Brands keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 20.9% compared with 7.1% at Keurig Dr Pepper.
Both pay dividends: Keurig Dr Pepper yields 2.6% and Constellation Brands 2.3%.
Constellation Brands scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 8 for Keurig Dr Pepper), 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 | KDP | STZ |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $48.8B | $23.1B |
| Share price | $35.84 | $135.33 |
| Change, 1 year | 32.0% | 3.3% |
| Change, 5 years | −1.5% | −39.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.31 | 0.54 |
| Employees | 31K | 9,400 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 | 14 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 36.2× | – |
| P/S | 2.4× (better) | 2.5× |
| P/B | 1.9× (better) | 2.7× |
| EV/EBITDA | 25.0× | 10.4× (better) |
| P/FCF | 24.8× | 12.6× (better) |
| PEG | 2.44 | – |
| FCF yield | 4.0% | 8.0% (better) |
| Fair value | $25.87 | $220.98 |
| Margin of safety | −38.5% | 38.8% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 27.5% (better) | −4.3% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.4% (better) | 1.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −7.1% | 57.4% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −11.6% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 10.5% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 49.4% | 52.7% (better) |
| Operating margin | 16.2% | 30.2% (better) |
| Net margin | 7.1% | 20.9% (better) |
| FCF margin | 9.8% | 20.0% (better) |
| Return on equity | 5.7% | 23.9% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 5.3% | 12.3% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.20 (better) | 1.20 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 8.73 | 3.20 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 8.1× |
| Current ratio | 0.48 | 1.00 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 0.84 | 2.80 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.6% (better) | 2.3% |
| Payout ratio | 87.5% | 36.8% |
| Years of dividend growth | 5 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 8.9% | – |
| Buyback yield | – | 3.4% |
| Shareholder yield | 2.6% | 5.6% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 106% | 84.8% |
| Held by insiders | 4.7% | 16.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$1.1M | −$1.0M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.7% | 6.7% |
Go deeper
- KDP stock overview
- KDP income statement
- KDP valuation and score
- STZ stock overview
- STZ income statement
- STZ valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.