COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
CELH vs MNST
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CELH scored 72.5, MNST scored 63.4 — CELH leads.
Compare another set
CELH
Celsius Holdings, Inc. Common Stock
72.5
$33.36 · $8.4B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
9.1
CELH leads
MNST
Monster Beverage Corporation
63.4
$47.79 · $93.6B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestMNST44.3x
- Fastest growthCELH+82.9%
- Strongest balance sheetMNST0.01
- Highest qualityMNST91 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueCELH-21%
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
MNST
64
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
91
100
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
90
60
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
31
CELH is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CELH
MNST
$463mC
FCF
$2.1bB
+82.9%A
Rev
+20.4%A-
0.23A-
D/E
0.01A
145.0xD
P/E
44.3xC
0.35A
PEG
2.78C
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
MNST
21% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
50% above
~7%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~18%/yr
+1%
1-yr DCF upside
-42%
+27%
5-yr DCF upside
-33%
+77%
10-yr DCF upside
-18%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
CELH
No notable signals flagged.
MNST
Why this score
- Durable high returns
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.
MNSTMonster Beverage Corporation
Why now
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic · market cap $93.6b. 5% off the 52-week high of $50.17. Revenue growing +20%, comfortably above the S&P median. 23 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $50.13 (implying +5% upside).
Moat
Net margin 23% 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. FCF converts 99% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Trailing P/E 44x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. P/S 10.2x embeds aggressive forward growth — disappointing top-line guidance would compress the multiple hard.
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 MNST diverge
On the headline score the gap is 9.1 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.
- ValueCELH 59.5 · MNST 31.1CELH +28.4
- QualityCELH 64.0 · MNST 90.7MNST +26.7
- GrowthCELH 100.0 · MNST 90.2CELH +9.8
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.