Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. BG scored 51.0, CELH scored 67.0 — CELH leads.
Compare another set
BG
Bunge Global SA
Farm Products · Quality-Growth
51
$102.73 · $19.7B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
16.0
CELH leads
CELH
Celsius Holdings, Inc.
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic · Quality-Growth
67
$28.58 · $7.2B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthCELH+85.5%
Strongest balance sheetCELH0.23
Highest qualityCELH61 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueCELH-33%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
BG
stronger →← stronger
CELH
38
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
61
81
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
95
44
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
52
CELH is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
BG
CELH
-$711mF
FCF
$463mC
+32.4%A
Rev
+85.5%A
0.98B
D/E
0.23A-
0.2xA
P/S
—
1.37B
PEG
0.25A
—
P/E
124.3xD
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
BG
CELH
—
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
33% below
—
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~5%/yr
—
1-yr DCF upside
+14%
—
5-yr DCF upside
+48%
—
10-yr DCF upside
+118%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
BG
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
CELH
No notable signals flagged.
The companies
BGBunge Global SA
Farm Products · $102.73 · beta 0.72
Why now
Farm Products · market cap $19.7b. Down 24% from 52-week high of $134.87 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +32% — in hypergrowth territory. 9 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $141.78 (implying +38% upside).
Moat
Higher-variance name — the moat signals on the quantitative card are modest, so the durability case rests on execution (turning current growth into durable earnings power) or an un-monetized asset (IP / network effects / first-mover position) rather than an entrenched competitive position.
Risk
Free cash flow is negative (-$711m) — capital raises or debt issuance likely required; dilution / leverage risk. Net margin 1.1% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first. ROE 7% 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.
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic · $28.58 · beta 1.00
Why now
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic · market cap $7.2b. Down 57% from 52-week high of $66.74 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +86% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.25 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 21 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $42.19 (implying +48% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of cash released from working capital ($295m) — a release that doesn't repeat every year the way earnings can.
Risk
Trailing P/E 124.3x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Down 57% 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 BG and CELH diverge
On the headline score the gap is 16.0 points in favor of CELH. The widest single difference is Quality, where CELH leads by 23.3 points.
QualityBG 37.6 · CELH 60.9CELH +23.3
GrowthBG 80.9 · CELH 94.9CELH +14.0
ValueBG 43.7 · CELH 52.0CELH +8.3
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 CELH or BG the better stock?
CELH scores higher: CELH 67.0, BG 51.0 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 CELH and BG differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where CELH leads by 23 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. CELH leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are CELH and BG 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.