Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. GIS scored 23.7, PEP scored 65.5 — PEP leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. PEP's fundamentals are as of September 2026, but GIS's are as of May 2026 — a 3-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
GIS
General Mills, Inc.
Packaged Foods · Quality-Growth
23.7
$32.29 · $17.3B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
41.8
PEP leads
PEP
PepsiCo, Inc.
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic · Quality-Growth
65.5
$125.97 · $171.7B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthPEP+6.4%
Strongest balance sheetGIS1.82
Highest qualityPEP78 / 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
PEP
39
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
78
14
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
56
24
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
64
PEP is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
GIS
PEP
$1.6bC+
FCF
$10.5bA-
-5.4%D
Rev
+6.4%C+
1.82C
D/E
2.31C
0.9xB+
P/S
—
11.74D
PEG
1.31B
—
P/E
16.5xB+
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
PEP
12% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
5% above
~-4%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~6%/yr
+28%
1-yr DCF upside
-8%
+14%
5-yr DCF upside
-5%
-3%
10-yr DCF upside
-1%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
GIS
No notable signals flagged.
PEP
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.
PEPPepsiCo, Inc.
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic · $125.97
Why now
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic · market cap $171.7b. Down 27% from 52-week high of $171.48 — deep drawdown territory. 22 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $143.86 (implying +14% upside).
Moat
ROE 49% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 96% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash. $171.7b 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
D/E 2.31 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Dividend payout 75% of earnings on a 4.6% yield — distribution coverage is thin; one earnings stumble could force a dividend cut.
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 PEP diverge
On the headline score the gap is 41.8 points in favor of PEP. The widest single difference is Growth, where PEP leads by 42.3 points.
GrowthGIS 13.8 · PEP 56.1PEP +42.3
ValueGIS 24.4 · PEP 64.1PEP +39.7
QualityGIS 39.5 · PEP 78.2PEP +38.7
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 PEP or GIS the better stock?
PEP scores higher: PEP 65.5, 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 PEP and GIS differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where PEP leads by 42 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. PEP leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are PEP 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.