COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
CELH vs MKC
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CELH scored 72.5, MKC scored 57.1 — CELH leads.
Compare another set
CELH
Celsius Holdings, Inc. Common Stock
72.5
$33.36 · $8.4B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
15.4
CELH leads
MKC
McCormick & Company, Incorporated
57.1
$55.41 · $14.9B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestMKC9.2x
- Fastest growthCELH+82.9%
- Strongest balance sheetCELH0.23
- Highest qualityMKC74 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueMKC-32%
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
MKC
64
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
74
100
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
43
60
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
58
CELH is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CELH
MKC
$463mC
FCF
$970mC+
+82.9%A
Rev
+9.5%B
0.23A-
D/E
0.65B+
145.0xD
P/E
9.2xA
0.35A
PEG
2.19C
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
MKC
21% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
32% below
~7%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~-4%/yr
+1%
1-yr DCF upside
+40%
+27%
5-yr DCF upside
+48%
+77%
10-yr DCF upside
+59%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
CELH
No notable signals flagged.
MKC
Why this score
- Raising its dividend
The companies
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.
MKCMcCormick & Company, Incorporated
Why now
Packaged Foods · market cap $14.9b. Down 23% from 52-week high of $72.41 — deep drawdown territory. 13 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $60.62 (implying +9% upside).
Moat
Net margin 22% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 23% sits above Buffett's preferred 15% threshold — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately.
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 MKC diverge
On the headline score the gap is 15.4 points in favor of CELH. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- GrowthCELH 100.0 · MKC 43.4CELH +56.6
- QualityCELH 64.0 · MKC 73.6MKC +9.6
- ValueCELH 59.5 · MKC 58.4level
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.