Constellation Brands vs Molson Coors Beverage
STZ and TAP side by side, both in beverages. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How STZ and TAP compare
Constellation Brands is the larger company, worth 3.3 times as much as Molson Coors Beverage ($23.1B against $7.1B).
Molson Coors Beverage grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (−2.6% 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 −17.8% at Molson Coors Beverage.
Both pay dividends: Constellation Brands yields 2.3% and Molson Coors Beverage 4.8%.
Constellation Brands scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 9 for Molson Coors Beverage), 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 | STZ | TAP |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $23.1B | $7.1B |
| Share price | $135.33 | $40.12 |
| Change, 1 year | 3.3% | −7.8% |
| Change, 5 years | −39.2% | −13.9% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.54 | 0.37 |
| Employees | 9,400 | 16K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 (better) | 9 |
| Valuation score | 3 | 3 |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/S | 2.5× | 0.5× (better) |
| P/B | 2.7× | 0.7× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 10.4× | – |
| P/FCF | 12.6× | 5.3× (better) |
| FCF yield | 8.0% | 18.7% (better) |
| Fair value | $220.98 | $101.37 |
| Margin of safety | 38.8% | 60.4% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −4.3% | −2.6% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 1.2% | 2.2% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 57.4% (better) | −322% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | −328% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 52.7% (better) | 31.7% |
| Operating margin | 30.2% (better) | −19.5% |
| Net margin | 20.9% (better) | −17.8% |
| FCF margin | 20.0% (better) | 10.3% |
| Return on equity | 23.9% (better) | −19.6% |
| Return on invested capital | 12.3% (better) | −11.4% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.20 | 0.76 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.20 | – |
| Interest coverage | 8.1× (better) | −9.9× |
| Current ratio | 1.00 (better) | 0.88 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.80 (better) | 0.80 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.3% | 4.8% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 36.8% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 5 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 27.0% |
| Buyback yield | 3.4% | 7.8% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 5.6% | 12.5% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 84.8% | 106% |
| Held by insiders | 16.1% | 14.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$1.0M | $498K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.7% | – |
Go deeper
- STZ stock overview
- STZ income statement
- STZ 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.