Constellation Brands vs Molson Coors Beverage
STZ and TAP side by side, both in beverages. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How STZ and TAP compare
Constellation Brands is the larger company, worth 3.4 times as much as Molson Coors Beverage ($24.6B against $7.2B).
Molson Coors Beverage grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (−2.3% versus −4.3% for Constellation Brands).
Constellation Brands keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 20.9% compared with 6.9% at Molson Coors Beverage.
Both pay dividends: Constellation Brands yields 2.1% and Molson Coors Beverage 4.7%.
Molson Coors Beverage scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 14 for Constellation 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 | STZ | TAP |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $24.6B | $7.2B |
| Share price | $145.61 | $40.84 |
| Change, 1 year | 11.7% | −11.2% |
| Change, 5 years | −38.1% | −11.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.54 | 0.37 |
| Employees | 9,400 | 16K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 | 15 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 8.7× |
| P/S | 2.7× | 0.6× (better) |
| P/B | 2.9× | 0.7× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 10.9× | 6.2× (better) |
| P/FCF | 13.4× | 6.2× (better) |
| FCF yield | 7.5% | 16.2% (better) |
| Fair value | $197.36 | $100.86 |
| Margin of safety | 26.2% | 59.5% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −4.3% | −2.3% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 1.2% | 2.2% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 57.4% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 52.7% (better) | 30.8% |
| Operating margin | 30.2% (better) | 10.2% |
| Net margin | 20.9% (better) | 6.9% |
| FCF margin | 20.0% (better) | 9.1% |
| Return on equity | 23.9% (better) | 8.7% |
| Return on invested capital | 12.3% (better) | 6.5% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.20 | 0.59 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.20 | 2.63 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 8.1× (better) | 5.0× |
| Current ratio | 1.00 (better) | 0.86 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.87 (better) | 1.47 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.1% | 4.7% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 36.8% | 40.7% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 5 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 27.0% |
| Buyback yield | 3.1% | 7.9% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 5.3% | 12.6% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 85.5% | 106% |
| Held by insiders | 16.3% | 14.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$1.1M | $45.3K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.3% | – |
Go deeper
- STZ stock overview
- STZ income statement
- STZ 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.