B&G Foods vs Flowers Foods
BGS and FLO 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 BGS and FLO compare
Flowers Foods is the larger company, worth 4.1 times as much as B&G Foods ($1.2B against $284M).
Flowers Foods grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (0.62% versus −2.7% for B&G Foods).
Flowers Foods keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 0.58% compared with −4.7% at B&G Foods.
Both pay dividends: B&G Foods yields 16.3% and Flowers Foods 13.5%.
Flowers Foods scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 10 for B&G Foods), 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 | BGS | FLO |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $284M | $1.2B |
| Share price | $3.50 | $5.53 |
| Change, 1 year | −25.1% | −52.0% |
| Change, 5 years | −88.6% | −79.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.49 | 0.19 |
| Employees | 2,497 | 10K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 14 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 39.5× |
| P/S | 0.2× (better) | 0.2× |
| P/B | 0.8× (better) | 0.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | 17.9× | 10.0× (better) |
| P/FCF | 2.9× (better) | 3.5× |
| FCF yield | 35.0% (better) | 28.5% |
| Fair value | $13.74 | $13.04 |
| Margin of safety | 74.5% (better) | 57.6% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −2.7% | 0.62% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −1.5% | 3.7% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | −84.5% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | −84.8% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | −11.1% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 21.8% | 48.4% (better) |
| Operating margin | 3.7% (better) | 2.1% |
| Net margin | −4.7% | 0.58% (better) |
| FCF margin | 5.6% | 6.5% (better) |
| Return on equity | −20.4% | 2.2% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 2.2% | 2.3% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 5.75 | 1.27 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 15.68 | 5.80 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 1.4× |
| Current ratio | 2.84 (better) | 1.27 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.14 | 1.89 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 16.3% (better) | 13.5% |
| Payout ratio | – | 533% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 17 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | −16.7% | 4.5% (better) |
| Buyback yield | – | 0.34% |
| Shareholder yield | 16.3% (better) | 13.8% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 57.3% | 104% |
| Held by insiders | 5.3% | 7.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$248K (better) | −$3.9M |
| Short interest, % of float | 18.4% | 25.7% |
Go deeper
- BGS stock overview
- BGS income statement
- BGS valuation and score
- FLO stock overview
- FLO income statement
- FLO valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.