Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CELH scored 67.0, COCO scored 78.8 — COCO leads.
Compare another set
CELH
Celsius Holdings, Inc.
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic · Quality-Growth
67
$28.58 · $7.2B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
11.8
COCO leads
COCO
The Vita Coco Company, Inc.
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic · Quality-Growth
78.8
$58.39 · $3.4B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestCOCO32.3x
Fastest growthCELH+85.5%
Strongest balance sheetCOCO0.04
Highest qualityCOCO85 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueCELH-33%
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)
CELH
stronger →← stronger
COCO
61
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
85
95
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
91
52
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
64
COCO is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CELH
COCO
$463mC
FCF
$124mC
+85.5%A
Rev
+18.2%B+
0.23A-
D/E
0.04A
124.3xD
P/E
32.3xC
0.25A
PEG
2.11C
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
CELH
COCO
33% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
14% above
~5%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~13%/yr
+14%
1-yr DCF upside
-25%
+48%
5-yr DCF upside
-13%
+118%
10-yr DCF upside
+9%
These two disagree on this pair: the Value pillar ranks cheapness against sector peers, while price-vs-fair-value is an absolute read. A name can be the better value in its sector and still the dearer one on cash flows.
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
CELH
No notable signals flagged.
COCO
Why this score
Durable high returns
The companies
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.
COCOThe Vita Coco Company, Inc.
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic · $58.39 · beta 0.75
Why now
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic · market cap $3.4b. Down 32% from 52-week high of $85.83 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +18%, comfortably above the S&P median. 10 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $78.60 (implying +35% upside).
Moat
Net margin 16% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 31% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 114% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Down 32% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Trailing P/E 32x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
COCO leads CELH by 0.6 points (72.4 to 71.8), its sharpest advantage coming in P/E (grade C). A contrarian could still prefer CELH, which trades about 39% below our DCF fair value — a margin of safety the score doesn't reward.
Our AI analyst is busy right now, so this verdict is drawn directly from the pillars, grades and DCF above.
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 CELH and COCO diverge
On the headline score the gap is 11.8 points in favor of COCO. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
QualityCELH 60.9 · COCO 84.6COCO +23.7
ValueCELH 52.0 · COCO 63.5COCO +11.5
GrowthCELH 94.9 · COCO 91.1CELH +3.8
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 COCO or CELH the better stock?
COCO scores higher: COCO 78.8, CELH 67.0 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 COCO and CELH differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where COCO leads by 24 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 COCO and CELH 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.