Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. COCO scored 78.8, MDLZ scored 48.4 — COCO leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. COCO's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but MDLZ's are as of March 2026 — a 3-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
COCO
The Vita Coco Company, Inc.
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic · Quality-Growth
78.8
$58.39 · $3.4B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
30.4
COCO leads
MDLZ
Mondelez International, Inc.
Confectioners · Quality-Growth
48.4
$60.41 · $77.1B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestMDLZ22.3x
Fastest growthCOCO+18.2%
Strongest balance sheetCOCO0.04
Highest qualityCOCO85 / 100
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
MDLZ
85
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
60
91
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
59
64
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
32
COCO is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
COCO
MDLZ
$124mC
FCF
$2.6bB
+18.2%B+
Rev
+5.8%C+
0.04A
D/E
0.83B
32.3xC
P/E
22.3xC+
2.11C
PEG
0.90B+
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
MDLZ
14% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
85% above
~13%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~22%/yr
-25%
1-yr DCF upside
-49%
-13%
5-yr DCF upside
-46%
+9%
10-yr DCF upside
-42%
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
MDLZ
Why this score
Raising its dividend
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.
MDLZMondelez International, Inc.
Confectioners · $60.41 · beta 0.39
Why now
Confectioners · market cap $77.1b. 9% off the 52-week high of $66.65. PEG 0.90 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 22 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $69.00 (implying +14% upside).
Moat
ROE 13% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. $77.1b 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
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 COCO and MDLZ diverge
On the headline score the gap is 30.4 points in favor of COCO. The widest single difference is Growth, where COCO leads by 32.3 points.
GrowthCOCO 91.1 · MDLZ 58.8COCO +32.3
ValueCOCO 63.5 · MDLZ 32.3COCO +31.2
QualityCOCO 84.6 · MDLZ 59.7COCO +24.9
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 MDLZ the better stock?
COCO scores higher: COCO 78.8, MDLZ 48.4 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 MDLZ differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where COCO leads by 32 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 MDLZ 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.