Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. COCO scored 78.8, GIS scored 23.7 — COCO leads.
Compare another set
COCO
The Vita Coco Company, Inc.
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic · Quality-Growth
78.8
$58.39 · $3.4B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
55.1
COCO leads
GIS
General Mills, Inc.
Packaged Foods · Quality-Growth
23.7
$32.29 · $17.3B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthCOCO+18.2%
Strongest balance sheetCOCO0.04
Highest qualityCOCO85 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueGIS-12%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
COCO
stronger →← stronger
GIS
85
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
39
91
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
14
64
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
24
COCO is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
COCO
GIS
$124mC
FCF
$1.6bC+
+18.2%B+
Rev
-5.4%D
0.04A
D/E
1.82C
32.3xC
P/E
—
2.11C
PEG
11.74D
—
P/S
0.9xB+
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
COCO
GIS
14% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
12% below
~13%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-4%/yr
-25%
1-yr DCF upside
+28%
-13%
5-yr DCF upside
+14%
+9%
10-yr DCF upside
-3%
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
COCO
Why this score
Durable high returns
GIS
No notable signals flagged.
The companies
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.
GISGeneral Mills, Inc.
Packaged Foods · $32.29 · beta 0.02
Why now
Packaged Foods · market cap $17.3b. Down 35% from 52-week high of $49.71 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue -5% — in contraction; any catalyst that reverses this triggers re-rating. 18 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $37.00 (implying +15% upside).
Moat
Turnaround / out-of-favor name — GAAP-unprofitable for now, so the durability case is forward-looking: it rests on a recovery (margin normalization, a cyclical upturn or restructuring) or an un-monetized asset (IP / network effects / first-mover position) rather than on current reported results.
Risk
Revenue contracting -5% — the operational turn is not yet visible in the top line. Currently unprofitable (margin -4.9%) — path to GAAP profitability is the core thesis risk. Down 35% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up.
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 COCO and GIS diverge
On the headline score the gap is 55.1 points in favor of COCO. The widest single difference is Growth, where COCO leads by 77.3 points.
GrowthCOCO 91.1 · GIS 13.8COCO +77.3
QualityCOCO 84.6 · GIS 39.5COCO +45.1
ValueCOCO 63.5 · GIS 24.4COCO +39.1
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 COCO or GIS the better stock?
COCO scores higher: COCO 78.8, GIS 23.7 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 GIS differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where COCO leads by 77 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. COCO leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are COCO and GIS 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.