COMPARE · Data as of August 24, 2026
BG vs CELH
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. BG scored 40.5, CELH scored 72.5 — CELH leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. CELH's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but BG's are as of March 2026 — a 3-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
BG
Bunge Global SA
40.5
$110.16 · $21.2B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
32.0
CELH leads
CELH
Celsius Holdings, Inc. Common Stock
72.5
$33.36 · $8.4B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- Fastest growthCELH+82.9%
- Strongest balance sheetCELH0.23
- Highest qualityCELH64 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueCELH-21%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
BG
stronger →← stronger
CELH
33
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
64
70
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
100
29
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
60
CELH is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
BG
CELH
-$1.2bF
FCF
$463mC
+17.5%B+
Rev
+82.9%A
0.98B
D/E
0.23A-
1.2xB+
P/S
—
1.37B
PEG
0.35A
—
P/E
145.0xD
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
21% below
—
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~7%/yr
—
1-yr DCF upside
+1%
—
5-yr DCF upside
+27%
—
10-yr DCF upside
+77%
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
Why now
Farm Products · market cap $21.2b. 18% off the 52-week high of $134.87. Revenue growing +17%, comfortably above the S&P median. 9 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $141.22 (implying +28% 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 (-$1.2b) — capital raises or debt issuance likely required; dilution / leverage risk. Net margin 3.8% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first. ROE 4% 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. Common Stock
Why now
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic · market cap $8.4b. Down 50% from 52-week high of $66.74 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +83% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.35 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 20 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $40.95 (implying +23% 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 145.0x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Down 50% 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 32.0 points in favor of CELH. The widest single difference is Value, where CELH leads by 30.9 points.
- ValueBG 28.6 · CELH 59.5CELH +30.9
- QualityBG 33.3 · CELH 64.0CELH +30.7
- GrowthBG 69.9 · CELH 100.0CELH +30.1
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.