Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. ABEV scored 54.8, MNST scored 62.5 — MNST leads.
Compare another set
ABEV
Ambev S.A.
Beverages - Brewers · Quality-Growth
54.8
$3.19 · $49.2B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
7.7
MNST leads
MNST
Monster Beverage Corporation
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic · Quality-Growth
62.5
$43.64 · $85.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestABEV16.8x
Fastest growthMNST+20.4%
Strongest balance sheetMNST0.01
Highest qualityMNST90 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueABEV-36%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
Growth against the P/E multiple. Up and to the right is cheaper and faster — the quality-growth idea in one picture. Points beyond the axis are pinned to the edge and marked off-scale rather than allowed to compress everything else.
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
ABEV
stronger →← stronger
MNST
89
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
90
35
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
88
73
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
31
MNST is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
ABEV
MNST
$4.8bB
FCF
$2.1bB
-1.4%D+
Rev
+20.4%A-
0.03A
D/E
0.01A
16.8xB+
P/E
40.4xC
1.98C+
PEG
2.24C
Winner per row is the stronger grade; where grades tie, the better figure breaks it. A true tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
ABEV
MNST
36% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
123% above
~-5%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~30%/yr
+50%
1-yr DCF upside
-60%
+57%
5-yr DCF upside
-55%
+68%
10-yr DCF upside
-47%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
ABEV
Why this score
Durable high returns
Cut its dividend
Foreign reporter (BRL)
MNST
Why this score
Durable high returns
The companies
ABEVAmbev S.A.
Beverages - Brewers · $3.19 · beta 0.22
Why now
Beverages - Brewers · market cap $49.2b. 8% off the 52-week high of $3.45. 10 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $3.35 (implying +5% upside).
Moat
Net margin 18% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 18% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 148% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Dividend payout 79% of earnings on a 4.3% yield — distribution coverage is thin; one earnings stumble could force a dividend cut.
MNSTMonster Beverage Corporation
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic · $43.64 · beta 0.49
Why now
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic · market cap $85.5b. 13% off the 52-week high of $50.17. Revenue growing +20%, comfortably above the S&P median. 23 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $50.02 (implying +15% upside).
Moat
Net margin 23% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 23% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 99% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Trailing P/E 40x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
Generating verdict… typically 5–10 seconds
Not investment advice. The Bull Rankings publishes a quantitative ranking model and accompanying analysis for general informational purposes only. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security; nothing is personalized to your circumstances, risk tolerance, or tax situation. Investing carries the risk of loss — invest at your own risk and consider consulting a licensed financial professional before acting on anything you read here. See terms and methodology for full disclosures.
Where ABEV and MNST diverge
On the headline score the gap is 7.7 points in favor of MNST. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
GrowthABEV 34.7 · MNST 87.7MNST +53.0
ValueABEV 73.1 · MNST 30.8ABEV +42.3
QualityABEV 88.9 · MNST 90.4level
Pillars run 0–100. Value is judged against each company's own sector, so a Value score is a statement about a company relative to its own industry rather than to the other name here. A wide Value gap usually means the market already prices the difference in quality or growth — which is the trade-off this comparison comes down to.
Common questions
Is MNST or ABEV the better stock?
MNST scores higher: MNST 62.5, ABEV 54.8 out of 100 on the Bull Rankings quality-growth score, which blends business quality, growth and valuation into one number. A higher score means a stronger business at a more reasonable price — it is not a price target or a recommendation.
Where do MNST and ABEV differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where MNST leads by 53 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. Neither name sweeps: they trade the lead across the three pillars, so the comparison is a trade-off rather than one being better on every measure.
How are MNST and ABEV scored?
Each carries the same 0–100 quality-growth score used everywhere on the site, built from three pillars — quality (profitability and returns on capital), growth (revenue and earnings), and value (what you pay for them) — combined as a geometric mean, so a weak pillar cannot be papered over by a strong one.
How current is this comparison?
The whole universe is re-scored every trading day after the US market close, so the scores and fundamentals here reflect the latest published edition.