Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. GIS scored 23.7, MNST scored 62.5 — MNST leads.
Compare another set
GIS
General Mills, Inc.
Packaged Foods · Quality-Growth
23.7
$32.29 · $17.3B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
38.8
MNST leads
MNST
Monster Beverage Corporation
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic · Quality-Growth
62.5
$43.64 · $85.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthMNST+20.4%
Strongest balance sheetMNST0.01
Highest qualityMNST90 / 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)
GIS
stronger →← stronger
MNST
39
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
90
14
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
88
24
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
31
MNST is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
GIS
MNST
$1.6bC+
FCF
$2.1bB
-5.4%D
Rev
+20.4%A-
1.82C
D/E
0.01A
0.9xB+
P/S
—
11.74D
PEG
2.24C
—
P/E
40.4xC
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
GIS
MNST
12% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
123% above
~-4%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~30%/yr
+28%
1-yr DCF upside
-60%
+14%
5-yr DCF upside
-55%
-3%
10-yr DCF upside
-47%
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
GIS
No notable signals flagged.
MNST
Why this score
Durable high returns
The companies
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.
MNSTMonster Beverage Corporation
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic · $43.64 · beta 0.49
Why now
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic · market cap $85.5b. 13% off the 52-week high of $50.17. Revenue growing +20%, comfortably above the S&P median. 23 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $50.02 (implying +15% upside).
Moat
Net margin 23% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 23% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 99% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Trailing P/E 40x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
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 GIS and MNST diverge
On the headline score the gap is 38.8 points in favor of MNST. The widest single difference is Growth, where MNST leads by 73.9 points.
GrowthGIS 13.8 · MNST 87.7MNST +73.9
QualityGIS 39.5 · MNST 90.4MNST +50.9
ValueGIS 24.4 · MNST 30.8MNST +6.4
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 MNST or GIS the better stock?
MNST scores higher: MNST 62.5, 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 MNST and GIS differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where MNST leads by 74 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. MNST leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are MNST 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.