Archer-Daniels-Midland vs Bunge Global
ADM and BG 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 ADM and BG compare
Archer-Daniels-Midland is the larger company, worth 1.8 times as much as Bunge Global ($35.1B against $19.5B).
On earnings, Bunge Global is cheaper: it trades at 17.1× trailing earnings, against 20.0× for Archer-Daniels-Midland.
Bunge Global grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (55.5% versus −0.82% for Archer-Daniels-Midland).
Archer-Daniels-Midland keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 2.2% compared with 1.2% at Bunge Global.
Both pay dividends: Archer-Daniels-Midland yields 2.8% and Bunge Global 2.8%.
Archer-Daniels-Midland scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 10 for Bunge Global), 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 | ADM | BG |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $35.1B | $19.5B |
| Share price | $72.90 | $101.65 |
| Change, 1 year | 26.2% | 5.6% |
| Change, 5 years | 11.6% | 8.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.44 | 0.26 |
| Employees | 41K | 34K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 (better) | 10 |
| Valuation score | 3 | 3 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Health score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 20.0× | 17.1× (better) |
| P/S | 0.4× | 0.2× (better) |
| P/B | – | 1.2× |
| EV/EBITDA | 10.9× (better) | 10.9× |
| P/FCF | 21.0× | – |
| FCF yield | 4.8% (better) | −13.6% |
| Fair value | $72.94 | $107.19 |
| Margin of safety | 0.06% | 5.2% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −0.82% | 55.5% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.5% | – |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 61.1% (better) | −12.4% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 60.1% (better) | −36.0% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −6.7% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 6.9% (better) | 5.1% |
| Net margin | 2.2% (better) | 1.2% |
| FCF margin | 2.0% (better) | −2.8% |
| Return on equity | – | 7.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 1.03 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.79 (better) | 4.70 |
| Current ratio | 1.39 | 1.50 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.01 (better) | 2.87 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.8% (better) | 2.8% |
| Payout ratio | 56.6% | 47.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | 15 (better) | 4 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 7.2% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 2.8% (better) | 2.8% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 87.5% | 95.6% |
| Held by insiders | 0.75% | 31.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$8.9M | $352K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.6% | 5.9% |
Go deeper
- ADM stock overview
- ADM income statement
- ADM valuation and score
- BG stock overview
- BG income statement
- BG valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.