Celsius vs Monster Beverage
CELH and MNST side by side, both in beverages. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CELH and MNST compare
Monster Beverage is the larger company, worth 5.5 times as much as Celsius ($45.5B against $8.2B).
On earnings, Celsius is cheaper: it trades at 36.4× trailing earnings, against 41.9× for Monster Beverage.
Celsius grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (49.1% versus 20.2% for Monster Beverage).
Celsius scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 10 for Monster Beverage), 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 | MNST |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $8.2B | $45.5B |
| Share price | $32.42 | $46.46 |
| Change, 1 year | −27.8% | 31.8% |
| Change, 5 years | 33.5% | 108% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.50 | 0.48 |
| Employees | 1,497 | 6,891 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 (better) | 10 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 36.4× (better) | 41.9× |
| P/S | 2.6× (better) | 4.7× |
| P/B | 6.4× | 4.6× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 18.1× | 14.6× (better) |
| P/FCF | 30.5× | 23.7× (better) |
| FCF yield | 3.3% | 4.2% (better) |
| Fair value | $46.37 | $47.55 |
| Margin of safety | 30.1% (better) | 2.3% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 49.1% (better) | 20.2% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 80.7% (better) | 12.5% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 392% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 709% (better) | 24.7% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 46.8% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 47.6% | 55.3% (better) |
| Operating margin | 13.0% | 28.5% (better) |
| Net margin | 10.0% | – |
| FCF margin | 8.5% | 20.0% (better) |
| Return on equity | 25.6% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 27.9% | 37.0% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.53 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.06 | – |
| Interest coverage | 8.7× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.97 | 3.82 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.54 | 16.47 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | – |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 0.15% | 0.33% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 0.15% | 0.33% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 65.9% | 136% |
| Held by insiders | 2.0% | 42.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $2.4M (better) | −$33.5M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 11.9% | 8.3% |
Go deeper
- CELH stock overview
- CELH income statement
- CELH valuation and score
- MNST stock overview
- MNST income statement
- MNST valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.