COMPARE · Data as of August 24, 2026
BRBR vs GIS
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. BRBR scored 72.0, GIS scored 22.1 — BRBR leads.
Compare another set
BRBR
BellRing Brands, Inc.
72
$10.19 · $1.2B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
49.9
BRBR leads
GIS
General Mills, Inc.
22.1
$40.92 · $21.9B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- Fastest growthBRBR+16.1%
- Highest qualityBRBR62 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueBRBR-86%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
BRBR
stronger →← stronger
GIS
62
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
46
62
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
14
98
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
17
BRBR is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
BRBR
GIS
$225mC
FCF
$1.6bC+
+16.1%B+
Rev
-5.4%D
—
D/E
2.18C
7.2xA
P/E
—
0.28A
PEG
11.74D
—
P/S
1.2xB
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
BRBR
GIS
86% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
11% below
decline
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~1%/yr
+446%
1-yr DCF upside
+11%
+626%
5-yr DCF upside
+13%
+1023%
10-yr DCF upside
+15%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
BRBR
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Short track record
GIS
No notable signals flagged.
The companies
BRBRBellRing Brands, Inc.
Why now
Packaged Foods · market cap $1.2b. Down 76% from 52-week high of $43.02 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +16%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.28 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 12 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $14.71 (implying +44% upside).
Moat
FCF converts 131% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Down 76% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. ROE -37% is below the long-run sustainable threshold of ~10% — capital efficiency would need to improve for the equity base to compound at the market rate.
GISGeneral Mills, Inc.
Why now
Packaged Foods · market cap $21.9b. Down 20% from 52-week high of $51.33 — 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 $37.56 (implying -8% 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
D/E 2.18 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Revenue contracting -5% — the operational turn is not yet visible in the top line. Currently unprofitable (margin -0.5%) — path to GAAP profitability is the core thesis risk.
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 BRBR and GIS diverge
On the headline score the gap is 49.9 points in favor of BRBR. The widest single difference is Value, where BRBR leads by 81.2 points.
- ValueBRBR 98.4 · GIS 17.2BRBR +81.2
- GrowthBRBR 62.1 · GIS 13.8BRBR +48.3
- QualityBRBR 62.1 · GIS 45.7BRBR +16.4
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.