Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CELH scored 67.0, PEP scored 65.5 — CELH leads.
Compare another set
CELH
Celsius Holdings, Inc.
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic · Quality-Growth
67
$28.58 · $7.2B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
1.5
CELH leads
PEP
PepsiCo, Inc.
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic · Quality-Growth
65.5
$125.97 · $171.7B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestPEP15.8x
Fastest growthCELH+85.5%
Strongest balance sheetCELH0.23
Highest qualityPEP78 / 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
PEP
61
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
78
95
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
56
52
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
64
PEP is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CELH
PEP
$463mC
FCF
$10.5bA-
+85.5%A
Rev
+6.4%C+
0.23A-
D/E
2.31C
124.3xD
P/E
15.8xB+
0.25A
PEG
1.31B
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
PEP
33% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
5% above
~5%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~6%/yr
+14%
1-yr DCF upside
-8%
+48%
5-yr DCF upside
-5%
+118%
10-yr DCF upside
-1%
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.
PEP
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.
PEPPepsiCo, Inc.
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic · $125.97
Why now
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic · market cap $171.7b. Down 27% from 52-week high of $171.48 — deep drawdown territory. 22 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $143.86 (implying +14% upside).
Moat
ROE 49% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 96% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash. $171.7b 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
D/E 2.31 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Dividend payout 75% of earnings on a 4.6% yield — distribution coverage is thin; one earnings stumble could force a dividend cut.
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 PEP diverge
On the headline score the gap is 1.5 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 94.9 · PEP 56.1CELH +38.8
QualityCELH 60.9 · PEP 78.2PEP +17.3
ValueCELH 52.0 · PEP 64.1PEP +12.1
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 PEP the better stock?
CELH scores higher: CELH 67.0, PEP 65.5 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 PEP differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where CELH leads by 39 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 CELH and PEP 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.