Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. MDLZ scored 48.4, MNST scored 62.5 — MNST leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. MNST's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but MDLZ's are as of March 2026 — a 3-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
MDLZ
Mondelez International, Inc.
Confectioners · Quality-Growth
48.4
$60.41 · $77.1B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
14.1
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
CheapestMDLZ22.3x
Fastest growthMNST+20.4%
Strongest balance sheetMNST0.01
Highest qualityMNST90 / 100
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)
MDLZ
stronger →← stronger
MNST
60
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
90
59
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
88
32
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
31
MNST is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
MDLZ
MNST
$2.6bB
FCF
$2.1bB
+5.8%C+
Rev
+20.4%A-
0.83B
D/E
0.01A
22.3xC+
P/E
40.4xC
0.90B+
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
MDLZ
MNST
85% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
123% above
~22%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~30%/yr
-49%
1-yr DCF upside
-60%
-46%
5-yr DCF upside
-55%
-42%
10-yr DCF upside
-47%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
MDLZ
Why this score
Raising its dividend
MNST
Why this score
Durable high returns
The companies
MDLZMondelez International, Inc.
Confectioners · $60.41 · beta 0.39
Why now
Confectioners · market cap $77.1b. 9% off the 52-week high of $66.65. PEG 0.90 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 22 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $69.00 (implying +14% upside).
Moat
ROE 13% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. $77.1b 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
Value re-rating depends on a catalyst. Without one — analyst day, divestiture, margin recovery, capital return — the stock can stay cheap on these multiples for years.
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 MDLZ and MNST diverge
On the headline score the gap is 14.1 points in favor of MNST. The widest single difference is Quality, where MNST leads by 30.7 points.
QualityMDLZ 59.7 · MNST 90.4MNST +30.7
GrowthMDLZ 58.8 · MNST 87.7MNST +28.9
ValueMDLZ 32.3 · MNST 30.8level
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 MDLZ the better stock?
MNST scores higher: MNST 62.5, MDLZ 48.4 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 MNST and MDLZ differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where MNST leads by 31 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. MNST also leads growth, while value is effectively level between them.
How are MNST and MDLZ 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.