Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. HRL scored 33.0, MNST scored 62.5 — MNST leads.
Compare another set
HRL
Hormel Foods Corporation
Packaged Foods · Quality-Growth
33
$19.19 · $10.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
29.5
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
CheapestHRL31.0x
Fastest growthMNST+20.4%
Strongest balance sheetMNST0.01
Highest qualityMNST90 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueHRL-11%
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)
HRL
stronger →← stronger
MNST
56
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
90
40
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
88
16
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
31
MNST is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
HRL
MNST
$781mC+
FCF
$2.1bB
+1.6%C
Rev
+20.4%A-
0.36A-
D/E
0.01A
31.0xC+
P/E
40.4xC
1.34B
PEG
2.24C
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
HRL
MNST
11% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
123% above
~2%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~30%/yr
+11%
1-yr DCF upside
-60%
+12%
5-yr DCF upside
-55%
+14%
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
HRL
No notable signals flagged.
MNST
Why this score
Durable high returns
The companies
HRLHormel Foods Corporation
Packaged Foods · $19.19 · beta 0.29
Why now
Packaged Foods · market cap $10.6b. Down 28% from 52-week high of $26.60 — deep drawdown territory. 8 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $25.56 (implying +33% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of depreciation and amortization ($272m) — non-cash charges that hold down reported earnings while cash generation stays strong.
Risk
Dividend payout 188% of earnings on a 6.0% yield — distribution coverage is thin; one earnings stumble could force a dividend cut. Trailing P/E 31x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. Net margin 2.8% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
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 HRL and MNST diverge
On the headline score the gap is 29.5 points in favor of MNST. The widest single difference is Growth, where MNST leads by 47.6 points.
GrowthHRL 40.1 · MNST 87.7MNST +47.6
QualityHRL 55.6 · MNST 90.4MNST +34.8
ValueHRL 16.1 · MNST 30.8MNST +14.7
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 MNST or HRL the better stock?
MNST scores higher: MNST 62.5, HRL 33.0 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 HRL differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where MNST leads by 48 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 HRL 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.