Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. COCO scored 78.8, LW scored 42.4 — 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
36.4
COCO leads
LW
Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc.
Packaged Foods · Quality-Growth
42.4
$47.87 · $6.6B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestLW26.2x
Fastest growthCOCO+18.2%
Strongest balance sheetCOCO0.04
Highest qualityCOCO85 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueLW-28%
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)
COCO
stronger →← stronger
LW
85
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
65
91
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
47
64
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
25
COCO is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
COCO
LW
$124mC
FCF
$540mC+
+18.2%B+
Rev
+2.5%C
0.04A
D/E
2.19C
32.3xC
P/E
26.2xC+
2.11C
PEG
0.81B+
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
LW
14% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
28% below
~13%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-1%/yr
-25%
1-yr DCF upside
+28%
-13%
5-yr DCF upside
+39%
+9%
10-yr DCF upside
+54%
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
LW
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.
LWLamb Weston Holdings, Inc.
Packaged Foods · $47.87 · beta 0.47
Why now
Packaged Foods · market cap $6.6b. Down 29% from 52-week high of $67.07 — deep drawdown territory. PEG 0.81 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 12 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $56.00 (implying +17% upside).
Moat
ROE 14% 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, mostly because of depreciation and amortization ($397m) — non-cash charges that hold down reported earnings while cash generation stays strong.
Risk
D/E 2.19 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Net margin 3.8% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
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 LW diverge
On the headline score the gap is 36.4 points in favor of COCO. The widest single difference is Growth, where COCO leads by 43.7 points.
GrowthCOCO 91.1 · LW 47.4COCO +43.7
ValueCOCO 63.5 · LW 24.7COCO +38.8
QualityCOCO 84.6 · LW 65.2COCO +19.4
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 LW the better stock?
COCO scores higher: COCO 78.8, LW 42.4 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 COCO and LW differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where COCO leads by 44 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 LW 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.