Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CAG scored 24.9, CELH scored 67.0 — CELH leads.
Compare another set
CAG
Conagra Brands, Inc.
Packaged Foods · Quality-Growth
24.9
$13.49 · $6.4B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
42.1
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 valueCAG-48%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
CAG
stronger →← stronger
CELH
38
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
61
14
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
95
29
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
52
CELH is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CAG
CELH
$979mC+
FCF
$463mC
-2.9%D+
Rev
+85.5%A
1.21C+
D/E
0.23A-
0.6xA-
P/S
—
10.86D
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
CAG
CELH
48% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
33% below
~-15%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~5%/yr
+111%
1-yr DCF upside
+14%
+93%
5-yr DCF upside
+48%
+71%
10-yr DCF upside
+118%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
CAG
Why this score
Cut its dividend
CELH
No notable signals flagged.
The companies
CAGConagra Brands, Inc.
Packaged Foods · $13.49 · beta 0.00
Why now
Packaged Foods · market cap $6.4b. Down 34% from 52-week high of $20.32 — deep drawdown territory. 16 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $14.32 (implying +6% upside).
Moat
Turnaround / out-of-favor name — GAAP-unprofitable for now, so the durability case is forward-looking: it rests on a recovery (margin normalization, a cyclical upturn or restructuring) or an un-monetized asset (IP / network effects / first-mover position) rather than on current reported results.
Risk
Currently unprofitable (margin -17.0%) — path to GAAP profitability is the core thesis risk. Down 34% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Dividend payout 80% of earnings on a 5.2% yield — distribution coverage is thin; one earnings stumble could force a dividend cut.
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 CAG and CELH diverge
On the headline score the gap is 42.1 points in favor of CELH. The widest single difference is Growth, where CELH leads by 80.8 points.
GrowthCAG 14.1 · CELH 94.9CELH +80.8
ValueCAG 28.6 · CELH 52.0CELH +23.4
QualityCAG 38.1 · CELH 60.9CELH +22.8
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 CAG the better stock?
CELH scores higher: CELH 67.0, CAG 24.9 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 CAG differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where CELH leads by 81 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 CAG 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.