Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. LW scored 42.4, CELH scored 67.0 — CELH leads.
Compare another set
LW
Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc.
Packaged Foods · Quality-Growth
42.4
$47.87 · $6.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
24.6
CELH leads
CELH
Celsius Holdings, Inc.
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic · Quality-Growth
67
$28.58 · $7.2B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestLW26.2x
Fastest growthCELH+85.5%
Strongest balance sheetCELH0.23
Highest qualityLW65 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueCELH-33%
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)
LW
stronger →← stronger
CELH
65
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
61
47
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
95
25
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
52
CELH is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
LW
CELH
$540mC+
FCF
$463mC
+2.5%C
Rev
+85.5%A
2.19C
D/E
0.23A-
26.2xC+
P/E
124.3xD
0.81B+
PEG
0.25A
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
LW
CELH
28% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
33% below
~-1%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~5%/yr
+28%
1-yr DCF upside
+14%
+39%
5-yr DCF upside
+48%
+54%
10-yr DCF upside
+118%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
The companies
LWLamb Weston Holdings, Inc.
Packaged Foods · $47.87 · beta 0.47
Why now
Packaged Foods · market cap $6.6b. Down 29% from 52-week high of $67.07 — deep drawdown territory. PEG 0.81 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 12 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $56.00 (implying +17% upside).
Moat
ROE 14% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of depreciation and amortization ($397m) — non-cash charges that hold down reported earnings while cash generation stays strong.
Risk
D/E 2.19 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Net margin 3.8% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
CELHCelsius Holdings, Inc.
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic · $28.58 · beta 1.00
Why now
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic · market cap $7.2b. Down 57% from 52-week high of $66.74 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +86% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.25 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 21 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $42.19 (implying +48% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of cash released from working capital ($295m) — a release that doesn't repeat every year the way earnings can.
Risk
Trailing P/E 124.3x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Down 57% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Net margin 4.2% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
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 LW and CELH diverge
On the headline score the gap is 24.6 points in favor of CELH. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
GrowthLW 47.4 · CELH 94.9CELH +47.5
ValueLW 24.7 · CELH 52.0CELH +27.3
QualityLW 65.2 · CELH 60.9LW +4.3
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 CELH or LW the better stock?
CELH scores higher: CELH 67.0, LW 42.4 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 CELH and LW differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where CELH leads by 48 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. Neither name sweeps: they trade the lead across the three pillars, so the comparison is a trade-off rather than one being better on every measure.
How are CELH and LW 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.