Celsius vs Vita Coco
CELH and COCO side by side, both in beverages. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CELH and COCO compare
Celsius is the larger company, worth 2.2 times as much as Vita Coco ($8.4B against $3.7B).
On earnings, Vita Coco is cheaper: it trades at 32.8× trailing earnings, against 37.1× for Celsius.
Celsius grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (49.1% versus 26.0% for Vita Coco).
Vita Coco keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 15.7% compared with 10.0% at Celsius.
Vita Coco scores higher on the StockData Score (21 against 16 for Celsius), 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 | CELH | COCO |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $8.4B | $3.7B |
| Share price | $33.04 | $65.31 |
| Change, 1 year | −25.9% | 56.6% |
| Change, 5 years | 36.1% | 315% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.50 | 1.11 |
| Employees | 1,497 | 336 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 | 21 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Growth score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Performance score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 37.1× | 32.8× (better) |
| P/S | 2.6× (better) | 4.9× |
| P/B | 6.6× (better) | 8.7× |
| EV/EBITDA | 18.5× (better) | 23.0× |
| P/FCF | 31.1× | 25.9× (better) |
| PEG | – | 0.32 |
| FCF yield | 3.2% | 3.9% (better) |
| Fair value | $46.37 | $66.64 |
| Margin of safety | 28.7% (better) | 2.0% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 49.1% (better) | 26.0% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 80.7% (better) | 14.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 392% (better) | 74.2% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 709% (better) | 73.0% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 46.8% (better) | 16.3% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 47.6% (better) | 41.0% |
| Operating margin | 13.0% | 19.9% (better) |
| Net margin | 10.0% | 15.7% (better) |
| FCF margin | 8.5% | 18.8% (better) |
| Return on equity | 25.6% | 32.0% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 27.9% | 59.8% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.53 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.06 | – |
| Interest coverage | 8.7× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.97 | 2.48 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.58 | 11.32 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 0.15% | 1.7% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 0.15% | 1.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 65.9% | 86.8% |
| Held by insiders | 2.0% | 22.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $2.4M (better) | −$72.2M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 11.9% | 16.1% |
Go deeper
- CELH stock overview
- CELH income statement
- CELH valuation and score
- COCO stock overview
- COCO income statement
- COCO valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.