Anheuser-Busch InBev vs Molson Coors Beverage
BUD and TAP side by side, both in beverages. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BUD and TAP compare
Anheuser-Busch InBev grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (−0.75% versus −2.3% for Molson Coors Beverage).
Anheuser-Busch InBev keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 11.5% compared with 6.9% at Molson Coors Beverage.
Molson Coors Beverage pays a dividend yielding 4.8%; Anheuser-Busch InBev does not pay one.
Molson Coors Beverage scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 5 for Anheuser-Busch InBev), 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 | BUD | TAP |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | – | $7.0B |
| Share price | $84.08 | $39.69 |
| Change, 1 year | 32.7% | −15.3% |
| Change, 5 years | 43.6% | −13.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.51 | 0.37 |
| Employees | 137K | 16K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 5 | 15 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 5 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 8.4× |
| P/S | – | 0.5× |
| P/B | – | 0.7× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 6.1× |
| P/FCF | – | 6.0× |
| FCF yield | – | 16.7% |
| Fair value | – | $104.47 |
| Margin of safety | – | 62.0% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −0.75% (better) | −2.3% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.8% (better) | 2.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 16.8% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 18.5% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 37.5% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 55.9% (better) | 30.8% |
| Operating margin | 26.0% (better) | 10.2% |
| Net margin | 11.5% (better) | 6.9% |
| FCF margin | 18.9% (better) | 9.1% |
| Return on equity | 7.9% | 8.7% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 14.5% (better) | 6.5% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.59 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 2.63 |
| Interest coverage | 3.0× | 5.0× (better) |
| Current ratio | 0.66 | 0.86 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | – | 1.46 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 4.8% |
| Payout ratio | 66.4% | 40.7% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 5 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 27.0% |
| Buyback yield | – | 8.1% |
| Shareholder yield | – | 12.9% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 5.3% | 106% |
| Held by insiders | – | 14.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | – | $45.3K |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 2 (better) |
Go deeper
- BUD stock overview
- BUD income statement
- BUD 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.