Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CELH scored 67.0, MDLZ scored 48.4 — CELH leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. CELH's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but MDLZ'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.
CELH
Celsius Holdings, Inc.
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic · Quality-Growth
67
$28.58 · $7.2B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
18.6
CELH leads
MDLZ
Mondelez International, Inc.
Confectioners · Quality-Growth
48.4
$60.41 · $77.1B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestMDLZ22.3x
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
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
MDLZ
61
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
60
95
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
59
52
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
32
CELH is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CELH
MDLZ
$463mC
FCF
$2.6bB
+85.5%A
Rev
+5.8%C+
0.23A-
D/E
0.83B
124.3xD
P/E
22.3xC+
0.25A
PEG
0.90B+
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
MDLZ
33% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
85% above
~5%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~22%/yr
+14%
1-yr DCF upside
-49%
+48%
5-yr DCF upside
-46%
+118%
10-yr DCF upside
-42%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
CELH
No notable signals flagged.
MDLZ
Why this score
Raising its dividend
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.
MDLZMondelez International, Inc.
Confectioners · $60.41 · beta 0.39
Why now
Confectioners · market cap $77.1b. 9% off the 52-week high of $66.65. PEG 0.90 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 22 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $69.00 (implying +14% upside).
Moat
ROE 13% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. $77.1b market cap gives the company enough scale to absorb fixed costs that subscale competitors can't, without yet being so large that growth has to come from acquisition.
Risk
Value re-rating depends on a catalyst. Without one — analyst day, divestiture, margin recovery, capital return — the stock can stay cheap on these multiples for years.
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 CELH and MDLZ diverge
On the headline score the gap is 18.6 points in favor of CELH. The widest single difference is Growth, where CELH leads by 36.1 points.
GrowthCELH 94.9 · MDLZ 58.8CELH +36.1
ValueCELH 52.0 · MDLZ 32.3CELH +19.7
QualityCELH 60.9 · MDLZ 59.7level
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 MDLZ the better stock?
CELH scores higher: CELH 67.0, MDLZ 48.4 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 MDLZ differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where CELH leads by 36 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. CELH also leads value, while quality is effectively level between them.
How are CELH and MDLZ 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.