ALCO vs AVO vs CVGW vs DOLE vs PFGC

For growth investors, Mission Produce, Inc.

(AVO) is the stronger pick with 12. 7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -5. 5% for Alico, Inc. (ALCO). Mission Produce, Inc. (AVO) offers the better valuation at 24. 7x trailing P/E (19. 8x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Alico, Inc. (ALCO) a "Buy" — based on 3 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.

On trailing P/E, Mission Produce, Inc.

(AVO) is the cheapest at 24. 7x versus Performance Food Group Company at 42. 7x. On forward P/E, Dole plc is actually cheaper at 10. 7x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Performance Food Group Company (PFGC) delivered a total return of +72.

6%, compared to -59. 9% for Calavo Growers, Inc. (CVGW). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: PFGC returned +250. 7% versus CVGW's -36. 9%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Dole plc (DOLE) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

10β versus Performance Food Group Company's 0. 63β — meaning PFGC is approximately 539% more volatile than DOLE relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Calavo Growers, Inc. (CVGW) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 11% versus 179% for Performance Food Group Company — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Mission Produce, Inc.

(AVO) is pulling ahead at 12. 7% versus -5. 5% for Alico, Inc. (ALCO). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Calavo Growers, Inc. grew EPS 1950% year-over-year, compared to -22. 2% for Alico, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, AVO leads at 10. 0% 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.

Calavo Growers, Inc.

(CVGW) is the more profitable company, earning 3. 1% net margin versus -334. 3% for Alico, Inc. — meaning it keeps 3. 1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: AVO leads at 5. 1% versus -450. 5% for ALCO. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — PFGC leads at 11. 7%, 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.

On forward earnings alone, Dole plc (DOLE) trades at 10.

7x forward P/E versus 20. 1x for Performance Food Group Company — 9. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for AVO: 45. 3% to $19. 00.

In this comparison, CVGW (2.

9% yield), DOLE (2. 2% yield), ALCO (0. 5% yield) pay a dividend. AVO, PFGC do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Dole plc (DOLE) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.

10), 2. 2% yield). Both have compounded well over 10 years (DOLE: +12. 7%, PFGC: +250. 7%), 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.

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.

CVGW, DOLE pay a dividend while ALCO, AVO, PFGC do not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. 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.