Mission Produce vs 1 800 Flowers Com
AVO and FLWS side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How AVO and FLWS compare
Mission Produce is the larger company, worth 6.4 times as much as 1 800 Flowers Com ($1.0B against $161M).
Mission Produce grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (−6.2% versus −10.8% for 1 800 Flowers Com).
Mission Produce keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 0.12% compared with −9.3% at 1 800 Flowers Com.
Mission Produce scores higher on the StockData Score (5 against 3 for 1 800 Flowers Com), 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 | AVO | FLWS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.0B | $161M |
| Share price | $11.83 | $2.51 |
| Change, 1 year | −6.9% | −21.6% |
| Change, 5 years | −38.8% | −92.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.40 | 1.48 |
| Employees | 3,800 | – |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 394× | – |
| P/S | 0.8× | 0.1× (better) |
| P/B | 1.4× (better) | 1.7× |
| EV/EBITDA | 21.8× | – |
| FCF yield | −0.22% (better) | −3.9% |
| Fair value | $7.53 | $3.99 |
| Margin of safety | −57.1% | 37.1% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −6.2% (better) | −10.8% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 10.0% (better) | −6.7% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −95.9% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −94.4% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 3.3% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 11.4% | 37.9% (better) |
| Operating margin | 1.8% (better) | −8.4% |
| Net margin | 0.12% (better) | −9.3% |
| FCF margin | −0.17% (better) | −0.43% |
| Return on equity | 0.24% (better) | −87.7% |
| Return on invested capital | 1.4% (better) | −23.6% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.52 (better) | 2.88 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 5.41 | – |
| Interest coverage | 2.2× (better) | −6.9× |
| Current ratio | 1.92 (better) | 0.85 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.07 (better) | 1.25 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 0.96% (better) | 0.70% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.96% (better) | 0.70% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 46.8% | 52.2% |
| Held by insiders | 46.3% | 39.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $82.6M (better) | −$7.6M |
| Short interest, % of float | 12.2% | 19.6% |
Go deeper
- AVO stock overview
- AVO income statement
- AVO valuation and score
- FLWS stock overview
- FLWS income statement
- FLWS valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.