Simply Good Foods vs Utz Brands
SMPL and UTZ 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 SMPL and UTZ compare
Utz Brands is the larger company, worth 1.9 times as much as Simply Good Foods ($2.1B against $1.1B).
Utz Brands grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (0.48% versus −6.5% for Simply Good Foods).
Utz Brands keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of −2.7% compared with −11.5% at Simply Good Foods.
Utz Brands pays a dividend yielding 1.8%; Simply Good Foods does not pay one.
Simply Good Foods scores higher on the StockData Score (8 against 4 for Utz 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 | SMPL | UTZ |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.1B | $2.1B |
| Share price | $12.57 | $14.28 |
| Change, 1 year | −35.7% | 36.4% |
| Change, 5 years | −67.8% | −10.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.45 | 0.43 |
| Employees | 282 | 3,100 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 (better) | 4 |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 1 | 1 |
| Performance score | 0 | 0 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/S | 0.8× (better) | 1.4× |
| P/B | 0.8× (better) | 3.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 46.3× |
| P/FCF | 7.0× (better) | 857× |
| FCF yield | 14.4% (better) | 0.12% |
| Fair value | $28.37 | $4.83 |
| Margin of safety | 55.7% (better) | −196% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −6.5% | 0.48% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.2% | – |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −250% (better) | −789% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −266% (better) | −714% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 32.6% (better) | 24.6% |
| Operating margin | −13.2% | −1.1% (better) |
| Net margin | −11.5% | −2.7% (better) |
| FCF margin | 11.6% (better) | 0.17% |
| Return on equity | −9.6% | −5.5% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −7.8% | −0.81% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.24 (better) | 1.30 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 10.75 |
| Interest coverage | −8.4× | −0.4× (better) |
| Current ratio | 5.57 (better) | 1.07 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.00 (better) | 1.14 |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 1.8% |
| Buyback yield | 19.5% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 19.5% (better) | 1.8% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 99.0% | 53.5% |
| Held by insiders | 10.0% | 43.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $1.1M (better) | $13.6K |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 12.7% | 6.4% |
Go deeper
- SMPL stock overview
- SMPL income statement
- SMPL valuation and score
- UTZ stock overview
- UTZ income statement
- UTZ valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.