Boston Beer vs Constellation Brands
SAM and STZ side by side, both in beverages. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How SAM and STZ compare
Constellation Brands is the larger company, worth 11 times as much as Boston Beer ($24.4B against $2.2B).
Boston Beer grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (−3.7% 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 −3.8% at Boston Beer.
Constellation Brands pays a dividend yielding 2.1%; Boston Beer does not pay one.
Constellation Brands scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 9 for Boston Beer), 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 | SAM | STZ |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $2.2B | $24.4B |
| Share price | $219.16 | $144.12 |
| Change, 1 year | 8.9% | 12.2% |
| Change, 5 years | −52.8% | −38.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.74 | 0.53 |
| Employees | 2,543 | 9,400 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 14 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/S | 1.2× (better) | 2.6× |
| P/B | 3.0× | 2.8× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 10.8× |
| P/FCF | 12.0× (better) | 13.3× |
| FCF yield | 8.3% (better) | 7.5% |
| Fair value | $260.56 | $202.16 |
| Margin of safety | 15.9% | 28.7% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −3.7% (better) | −4.3% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 2.5% (better) | 1.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −179% | 57.4% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −181% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −8.6% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 49.1% | 52.7% (better) |
| Operating margin | −5.1% | 30.2% (better) |
| Net margin | −3.8% | 20.9% (better) |
| FCF margin | 9.7% | 20.0% (better) |
| Return on equity | −8.9% | 23.9% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −14.0% | 12.3% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 1.20 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 3.20 |
| Interest coverage | – | 8.1× |
| Current ratio | 1.13 (better) | 1.00 |
| Altman Z-score | 4.02 (better) | 2.86 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 2.1% |
| Payout ratio | – | 36.8% |
| Buyback yield | 5.6% (better) | 3.2% |
| Shareholder yield | 5.6% (better) | 5.3% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 85.1% | 85.5% |
| Held by insiders | 25.8% | 16.3% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $0 (better) | −$1.0M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 21.4% | 6.3% |
Go deeper
- SAM stock overview
- SAM income statement
- SAM 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.