Celsius vs Primo Brands
CELH and PRMB side by side, both in beverages. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CELH and PRMB compare
Celsius and Primo Brands are about the same size, with market caps of $8.4B and $8.7B.
On earnings, Celsius is cheaper: it trades at 37.1× trailing earnings, against 42.9× for Primo Brands.
Celsius grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (49.1% versus 4.5% for Primo Brands).
Celsius keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 10.0% compared with 3.1% at Primo Brands.
Primo Brands pays a dividend yielding 1.9%; Celsius does not pay one.
Celsius scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 8 for Primo Brands), 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 | PRMB |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $8.4B | $8.7B |
| Share price | $33.04 | $24.00 |
| Change, 1 year | −25.9% | 54.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 36.1% | 29.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.50 | 0.80 |
| Employees | 1,497 | 13K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 (better) | 8 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 37.1× (better) | 42.9× |
| P/S | 2.6× | 1.3× (better) |
| P/B | 6.6× | 2.9× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 18.5× | 11.3× (better) |
| P/FCF | 31.1× | 21.0× (better) |
| FCF yield | 3.2% | 4.8% (better) |
| Fair value | $46.37 | $23.64 |
| Margin of safety | 28.7% (better) | −1.5% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 49.1% (better) | 4.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 80.7% | – |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 392% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 709% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 46.8% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 47.6% (better) | 29.4% |
| Operating margin | 13.0% (better) | 8.6% |
| Net margin | 10.0% (better) | 3.1% |
| FCF margin | 8.5% (better) | 6.1% |
| Return on equity | 25.6% (better) | 6.7% |
| Return on invested capital | 27.9% (better) | 5.1% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.53 (better) | 1.69 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.06 | 3.94 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 8.7× (better) | 1.8× |
| Current ratio | 1.97 (better) | 1.11 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.58 (better) | 1.24 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 1.9% |
| Payout ratio | – | 81.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 1 |
| Buyback yield | 0.15% | 2.1% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 0.15% | 4.0% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 65.9% | 110% |
| Held by insiders | 2.0% | 59.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $2.4M (better) | −$993M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 11.9% | 20.2% |
Go deeper
- CELH stock overview
- CELH income statement
- CELH valuation and score
- PRMB stock overview
- PRMB income statement
- PRMB valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.