Boston Beer vs Molson Coors Beverage
SAM and TAP side by side, both in beverages. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How SAM and TAP compare
Molson Coors Beverage is the larger company, worth 3.2 times as much as Boston Beer ($7.0B against $2.2B).
Molson Coors Beverage grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (−2.3% versus −3.7% for Boston Beer).
Molson Coors Beverage keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 6.9% compared with −3.8% at Boston Beer.
Molson Coors Beverage pays a dividend yielding 4.8%; Boston Beer does not pay one.
Molson Coors Beverage scores higher on the StockData Score (15 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 | TAP |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $2.2B | $7.0B |
| Share price | $219.16 | $39.69 |
| Change, 1 year | 8.9% | −15.3% |
| Change, 5 years | −52.8% | −13.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.74 | 0.37 |
| Employees | 2,543 | 16K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 15 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 5 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 8.4× |
| P/S | 1.2× | 0.5× (better) |
| P/B | 3.0× | 0.7× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 6.1× |
| P/FCF | 12.0× | 6.0× (better) |
| FCF yield | 8.3% | 16.7% (better) |
| Fair value | $260.56 | $104.47 |
| Margin of safety | 15.9% | 62.0% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −3.7% | −2.3% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 2.5% (better) | 2.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −179% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −181% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −8.6% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 49.1% (better) | 30.8% |
| Operating margin | −5.1% | 10.2% (better) |
| Net margin | −3.8% | 6.9% (better) |
| FCF margin | 9.7% (better) | 9.1% |
| Return on equity | −8.9% | 8.7% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −14.0% | 6.5% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.59 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 2.63 |
| Interest coverage | – | 5.0× |
| Current ratio | 1.13 (better) | 0.86 |
| Altman Z-score | 4.02 (better) | 1.46 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 4.8% |
| Payout ratio | – | 40.7% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 5 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 27.0% |
| Buyback yield | 5.6% | 8.1% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 5.6% | 12.9% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 85.1% | 106% |
| Held by insiders | 25.8% | 14.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $0 | $45.3K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 21.4% | – |
Go deeper
- SAM stock overview
- SAM income statement
- SAM valuation and score
- TAP stock overview
- TAP income statement
- TAP valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.