COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
JBS vs MNST
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. JBS scored 72.0, MNST scored 63.4 — JBS leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. MNST's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but JBS's are as of December 2025 — a 6-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
JBS
JBS N.V.
72
$13.82 · $14.8B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
8.6
JBS leads
MNST
Monster Beverage Corporation
63.4
$47.79 · $93.6B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestJBS12.9x
- Fastest growthMNST+20.4%
- Strongest balance sheetMNST0.01
- Highest qualityMNST91 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueJBS-24%
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)
JBS
stronger →← stronger
MNST
69
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
91
69
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
90
87
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
31
MNST is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
JBS
MNST
$833mC+
FCF
$2.1bB
+11.7%B
Rev
+20.4%A-
2.83D
D/E
0.01A
12.9xA-
P/E
44.3xC
0.44A
PEG
2.78C
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
JBS
MNST
24% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
50% above
~8%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~18%/yr
+0%
1-yr DCF upside
-42%
+32%
5-yr DCF upside
-33%
+97%
10-yr DCF upside
-18%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
JBS
Why this score
- Short track record
MNST
Why this score
- Durable high returns
The companies
JBSJBS N.V.
Why now
Packaged Foods · market cap $14.8b. Down 26% from 52-week high of $18.65 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +12%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.44 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 15 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $18.03 (implying +30% upside).
Moat
ROE 23% sits above Buffett's preferred 15% threshold — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately.
Risk
D/E 2.83 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Dividend payout 93% of earnings on a 9.8% yield — distribution coverage is thin; one earnings stumble could force a dividend cut. Net margin 2.6% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
MNSTMonster Beverage Corporation
Why now
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic · market cap $93.6b. 5% 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 $50.13 (implying +5% 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% sits above Buffett's preferred 15% threshold — 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, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Trailing P/E 44x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. P/S 10.2x embeds aggressive forward growth — disappointing top-line guidance would compress the multiple hard.
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 JBS and MNST diverge
On the headline score the gap is 8.6 points in favor of JBS. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- ValueJBS 87.0 · MNST 31.1JBS +55.9
- QualityJBS 69.3 · MNST 90.7MNST +21.4
- GrowthJBS 69.0 · MNST 90.2MNST +21.2
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.