Primo Brands vs Constellation Brands
PRMB and STZ side by side, both in beverages. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How PRMB and STZ compare
Constellation Brands is the larger company, worth 3.2 times as much as Primo Brands ($23.1B against $7.2B).
Primo Brands grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (11.5% 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 1.5% at Primo Brands.
Both pay dividends: Primo Brands yields 2.3% and Constellation Brands 2.3%.
Constellation Brands scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 9 for Primo Brands), 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 | PRMB | STZ |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $7.2B | $23.1B |
| Share price | $19.74 | $135.33 |
| Change, 1 year | −8.2% | 3.3% |
| Change, 5 years | 3.7% | −39.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.83 | 0.54 |
| Employees | 13K | 9,400 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 14 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Dividend score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 75.9× | – |
| P/S | 1.1× (better) | 2.5× |
| P/B | 2.4× (better) | 2.7× |
| EV/EBITDA | 10.8× | 10.4× (better) |
| P/FCF | 19.5× | 12.6× (better) |
| FCF yield | 5.1% | 8.0% (better) |
| Fair value | $20.12 | $220.98 |
| Margin of safety | 1.9% | 38.8% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 11.5% (better) | −4.3% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | – | 1.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 57.4% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 29.2% | 52.7% (better) |
| Operating margin | 7.2% | 30.2% (better) |
| Net margin | 1.5% | 20.9% (better) |
| FCF margin | 5.4% | 20.0% (better) |
| Return on equity | 3.2% | 23.9% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 3.7% | 12.3% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.73 | 1.20 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.35 | 3.20 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 1.5× | 8.1× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.05 (better) | 1.00 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.08 | 2.80 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.3% (better) | 2.3% |
| Payout ratio | 163% | 36.8% |
| Years of dividend growth | 1 | – |
| Buyback yield | 3.3% | 3.4% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 5.7% (better) | 5.6% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 110% | 84.8% |
| Held by insiders | 59.9% | 16.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$990M | −$1.0M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 21.0% | 6.7% |
Go deeper
- PRMB stock overview
- PRMB income statement
- PRMB 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.