National Beverage vs Monster Beverage
FIZZ and MNST side by side, both in beverages. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How FIZZ and MNST compare
Monster Beverage is the larger company, worth 13 times as much as National Beverage ($44.5B against $3.4B).
On earnings, National Beverage is cheaper: it trades at 19.8× trailing earnings, against 40.9× for Monster Beverage.
Monster Beverage grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (20.2% versus −1.8% for National Beverage).
National Beverage pays a dividend yielding 8.8%; Monster Beverage does not pay one.
National Beverage scores higher on the StockData Score (18 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 | FIZZ | MNST |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.4B | $44.5B |
| Share price | $36.74 | $45.40 |
| Change, 1 year | 12.0% | 29.7% |
| Change, 5 years | −38.9% | 103% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.52 | 0.48 |
| Employees | 1,677 | 6,891 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 18 (better) | 10 |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 19.8× (better) | 40.9× |
| P/S | 2.9× (better) | 4.6× |
| P/B | 9.4× | 4.5× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 13.8× (better) | 14.3× |
| P/FCF | 21.2× (better) | 23.1× |
| PEG | 2.23 | – |
| FCF yield | 4.7% (better) | 4.3% |
| Fair value | $42.31 | $48.46 |
| Margin of safety | 13.2% (better) | 6.3% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −1.8% | 20.2% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 1.9% | 12.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −5.9% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −6.5% | 24.7% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 1.1% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 36.2% | 55.3% (better) |
| Operating margin | 18.4% | 28.5% (better) |
| Net margin | 14.8% | – |
| FCF margin | 13.7% | 20.0% (better) |
| Return on equity | 40.1% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 64.6% (better) | 37.0% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Current ratio | 2.39 | 3.82 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 14.10 | 16.18 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | – |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 8.8% | – |
| Payout ratio | 174% | – |
| Buyback yield | – | 0.34% |
| Shareholder yield | 8.8% (better) | 0.34% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 26.3% | 136% |
| Held by insiders | 0.22% | 42.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $7.9K (better) | −$33.5M |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.6% | 8.3% |
Go deeper
- FIZZ stock overview
- FIZZ income statement
- FIZZ 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.