COMPARE · Data as of August 12, 2026
ADM vs CELH
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. ADM scored 52.2, CELH scored 72.9 — CELH leads.
Compare another set
ADM
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company
52.2
$79.73 · $38.4B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
20.7
CELH leads
CELH
Celsius Holdings, Inc.
72.9
$27.62 · $7.0B
fundamentals as of
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
ADM
stronger →← stronger
CELH
65
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
64
52
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
100
41
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
61
CELH is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
ADM
CELH
$1.7bC+
FCF
$463mC
+1.0%C
Rev
+82.9%A
0.39A-
D/E
0.23A-
21.8xB
P/E
120.1xD
1.05B+
PEG
0.29A
Winner per row is the stronger grade in our model; a tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
ADM
CELH
7% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
34% below
~5%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~2%/yr
-7%
1-yr DCF upside
+22%
-7%
5-yr DCF upside
+52%
-6%
10-yr DCF upside
+110%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
ADM
Why this score
- Short track record
CELH
No notable signals flagged.
The companies
ADMArcher-Daniels-Midland Company
Why now
Farm Products · market cap $38.4b. 10% off the 52-week high of $88.46. 10 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $78.70 (implying -1% upside).
Moat
Moat signals from the quantitative card are modest — profitability and capital efficiency are middle-of-pack. The thesis here depends on softer factors (switching costs, brand, distribution, regulatory protection) not captured by the quality-growth screen.
Risk
ROE 8% is below the long-run sustainable threshold of ~10% — capital efficiency would need to improve for the equity base to compound at the market rate.
CELHCelsius Holdings, Inc.
Why now
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic · market cap $7.0b. Down 59% from 52-week high of $66.74 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +83% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.29 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 20 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $41.55 (implying +50% upside).
Moat
ROE 11% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income — non-cash charges (depreciation, intangible amortization) are holding down GAAP earnings while cash generation stays strong.
Risk
Trailing P/E 120.1x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Down 59% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Net margin 4.2% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
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 ADM and CELH diverge
On the headline score the gap is 20.7 points in favour of CELH. The widest single difference is Growth, where CELH leads by 47.6 points.
- GrowthADM 52.4 · CELH 100.0CELH +47.6
- ValueADM 41.5 · CELH 60.7CELH +19.2
- QualityADM 65.4 · CELH 63.7level
Pillars run 0–100 against sector peers, so a 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.