Packaged Foods
Compare Stocks
2 / 10Stock Comparison
NOMD vs MKC
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Packaged Foods
NOMD vs MKC — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Industry | Packaged Foods | Packaged Foods |
| Market Cap | $1.44B | $12.14B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $3.03B | $6.84B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $137M | $789M |
| Gross Margin | 27.1% | 37.9% |
| Operating Margin | 10.7% | 15.7% |
| Forward P/E | 6.9x | 15.5x |
| Total Debt | $2.29B | $4.00B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $325M | $96M |
NOMD vs MKC — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nomad Foods Limited (NOMD) | 100 | 47.8 | -52.2% |
| McCormick & Company… (MKC) | 100 | 54.7 | -45.3% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: NOMD vs MKC
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
NOMD is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and long-term compounding.
- Dividend streak 2 yrs, beta 0.07, yield 7.1%
- 40.1% 10Y total return vs MKC's 26.9%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.07, Low D/E 91.8%, current ratio 1.07x
MKC carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure.
- Rev growth 1.7%, EPS growth 0.3%, 3Y rev CAGR 2.5%
- 1.7% revenue growth vs NOMD's -2.2%
- 11.5% margin vs NOMD's 4.5%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 1.7% revenue growth vs NOMD's -2.2% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (6.9x vs 15.5x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 11.5% margin vs NOMD's 4.5% | |
| Stability / Safety | Lower D/E ratio (69.3% vs 91.8%) | |
| Dividends | 7.1% yield, 2-year raise streak, vs MKC's 3.7% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | -33.6% vs NOMD's -43.5% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 6.0% ROA vs NOMD's 2.2%, ROIC 8.5% vs 5.5% |
NOMD vs MKC — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
NOMD vs MKC — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 2 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MKC leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MKC is the larger business by revenue, generating $6.8B annually — 2.3x NOMD's $3.0B. MKC is the more profitable business, keeping 11.5% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to NOMD's 4.5%. On growth, MKC holds the edge at +2.9% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $3.0B | $6.8B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $435M | $1.3B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $137M | $789M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $252M | $879M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +27.1% | +37.9% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +10.7% | +15.7% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +4.5% | +11.5% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +8.3% | +12.8% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -2.6% | +2.9% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -123.1% | +5.0% |
Valuation Metrics
NOMD leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 9.5x trailing earnings, NOMD trades at a 42% valuation discount to MKC's 16.3x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, NOMD's 7.3x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than MKC's 12.1x.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1.4B | $12.1B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $3.7B | $16.0B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 9.46x | 16.35x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 6.86x | 15.46x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 15.47x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 7.34x | 12.12x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.40x | 1.78x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.52x | 2.24x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 4.85x | 16.40x |
Profitability & Efficiency
MKC leads this category, winning 7 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
MKC delivers a 13.7% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $14 in annual profit, vs $5 for NOMD. MKC carries lower financial leverage with a 0.69x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to NOMD's 0.92x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), MKC scores 6/9 vs NOMD's 4/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +5.3% | +13.7% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +2.2% | +6.0% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +5.5% | +8.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +6.2% | +10.7% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.92x | 0.69x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $2.0B | $3.9B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $325M | $96M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $2.3B | $4.0B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 2.52x | 5.65x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
MKC leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in MKC five years ago would be worth $6,276 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $4,026 for NOMD. Over the past 12 months, MKC leads with a -33.6% total return vs NOMD's -43.5%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors MKC at -15.6% vs NOMD's -15.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -15.4% | -28.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -43.5% | -33.6% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -40.3% | -39.8% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -59.7% | -37.2% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +40.1% | +26.9% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -15.8% | -15.6% |
Risk & Volatility
MKC leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
MKC is the less volatile stock with a -0.03 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than NOMD's 0.07 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. MKC currently trades 61.3% from its 52-week high vs NOMD's 51.3% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.07x | -0.03x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $19.71 | $78.16 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $9.17 | $47.31 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +51.3% | +61.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 58.6 | 33.8 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.6M | 4.0M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — NOMD and MKC each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Wall Street rates NOMD as "Buy" and MKC as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 52.8% upside for MKC (target: $73) vs 33.4% for NOMD (target: $14). For income investors, NOMD offers the higher dividend yield at 7.06% vs MKC's 3.74%.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $13.50 | $73.20 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 13 | 30 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +7.1% | +3.7% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 2 | 27 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.61 | $1.79 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +16.5% | +0.3% |
MKC leads in 4 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). NOMD leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 1 tied.
NOMD vs MKC: Frequently Asked Questions
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is NOMD or MKC a better buy right now?
For growth investors, McCormick & Company, Incorporated (MKC) is the stronger pick with 1.
7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -2. 2% for Nomad Foods Limited (NOMD). Nomad Foods Limited (NOMD) offers the better valuation at 9. 5x trailing P/E (6. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Nomad Foods Limited (NOMD) a "Buy" — based on 13 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.
02Which has the better valuation — NOMD or MKC?
On trailing P/E, Nomad Foods Limited (NOMD) is the cheapest at 9.
5x versus McCormick & Company, Incorporated at 16. 3x. On forward P/E, Nomad Foods Limited is actually cheaper at 6. 9x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — NOMD or MKC?
Over the past 5 years, McCormick & Company, Incorporated (MKC) delivered a total return of -37.
2%, compared to -59. 7% for Nomad Foods Limited (NOMD). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: NOMD returned +40. 1% versus MKC's +26. 9%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — NOMD or MKC?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), McCormick & Company, Incorporated (MKC) is the lower-risk stock at -0.
03β versus Nomad Foods Limited's 0. 07β — meaning NOMD is approximately -355% more volatile than MKC relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, McCormick & Company, Incorporated (MKC) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 69% versus 92% for Nomad Foods Limited — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — NOMD or MKC?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), McCormick & Company, Incorporated (MKC) is pulling ahead at 1.
7% versus -2. 2% for Nomad Foods Limited (NOMD). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: McCormick & Company, Incorporated grew EPS 0. 3% year-over-year, compared to -35. 0% for Nomad Foods Limited. Over a 3-year CAGR, MKC leads at 2. 5% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.
06Which has better profit margins — NOMD or MKC?
McCormick & Company, Incorporated (MKC) is the more profitable company, earning 11.
5% net margin versus 4. 5% for Nomad Foods Limited — meaning it keeps 11. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: MKC leads at 16. 0% versus 10. 7% for NOMD. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — MKC leads at 37. 9%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.
07Is NOMD or MKC more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Nomad Foods Limited (NOMD) trades at 6.
9x forward P/E versus 15. 5x for McCormick & Company, Incorporated — 8. 6x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for MKC: 52. 8% to $73. 20.
08Which pays a better dividend — NOMD or MKC?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Nomad Foods Limited (NOMD) offers the highest yield at 7. 1%, versus 3. 7% for McCormick & Company, Incorporated (MKC).
09Is NOMD or MKC better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, McCormick & Company, Incorporated (MKC) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0.
03), 3. 7% yield). Both have compounded well over 10 years (MKC: +26. 9%, NOMD: +40. 1%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.
10What are the main differences between NOMD and MKC?
Both stocks operate in the Consumer Defensive sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform both.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.