Agricultural Farm Products
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
AQB vs LMNR vs SFM vs CTVA vs VITL
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Agricultural Farm Products
Grocery Stores
Agricultural Inputs
Agricultural Farm Products
AQB vs LMNR vs SFM vs CTVA vs VITL — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Agricultural Farm Products | Agricultural Farm Products | Grocery Stores | Agricultural Inputs | Agricultural Farm Products |
| Market Cap | $4M | $234M | $7.62B | $53.08B | $426M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $0.00 | $160M | $8.90B | $17.89B | $784M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-1.22B | $-16M | $507M | $1.16B | $48M |
| Gross Margin | — | 0.1% | 37.0% | 33.5% | 35.2% |
| Operating Margin | — | -15.1% | 7.6% | 13.8% | 8.2% |
| Forward P/E | — | — | 14.9x | 21.9x | 12.4x |
| Total Debt | $3M | $74M | $1.94B | $2.58B | $53M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $501K | $2M | $257M | $4.52B | $49M |
AQB vs LMNR vs SFM vs CTVA vs VITL — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jul 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| AquaBounty Technolo… (AQB) | 100 | 1.5 | -98.5% |
| Limoneira Company (LMNR) | 100 | 95.5 | -4.5% |
| Sprouts Farmers Mar… (SFM) | 100 | 314.0 | +214.0% |
| Corteva, Inc. (CTVA) | 100 | 284.1 | +184.1% |
| Vital Farms, Inc. (VITL) | 100 | 25.4 | -74.6% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: AQB vs LMNR vs SFM vs CTVA vs VITL
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
AQB has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in growth exposure.
- Rev growth 100.0%, EPS growth 87.7%
- 100.0% revenue growth vs LMNR's -16.6%
- +30.2% vs VITL's -73.5%
LMNR ranks third and is worth considering specifically for dividends.
- 2.3% yield, vs CTVA's 0.9%, (3 stocks pay no dividend)
SFM is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if long-term compounding is your priority.
- 203.9% 10Y total return vs CTVA's 186.7%
- Beta 0.17 vs AQB's 1.00
- 12.5% ROA vs AQB's -47.3%, ROIC 17.8% vs -30.1%
CTVA is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 5 yrs, beta 0.29, yield 0.9%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.29, Low D/E 10.6%, current ratio 1.43x
- Beta 0.29, yield 0.9%, current ratio 1.43x
- 6.5% margin vs LMNR's -10.0%
VITL is the clearest fit if your priority is valuation efficiency.
- PEG 0.31 vs CTVA's 1.83
- Lower P/E (12.4x vs 21.9x), PEG 0.31 vs 1.83
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 100.0% revenue growth vs LMNR's -16.6% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (12.4x vs 21.9x), PEG 0.31 vs 1.83 | |
| Quality / Margins | 6.5% margin vs LMNR's -10.0% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.17 vs AQB's 1.00 | |
| Dividends | 2.3% yield, vs CTVA's 0.9%, (3 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +30.2% vs VITL's -73.5% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 12.5% ROA vs AQB's -47.3%, ROIC 17.8% vs -30.1% |
AQB vs LMNR vs SFM vs CTVA vs VITL — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
AQB vs LMNR vs SFM vs CTVA vs VITL — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
CTVA leads in 1 of 6 categories
VITL leads 1 • SFM leads 1 • AQB leads 0 • LMNR leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
CTVA leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
CTVA and AQB operate at a comparable scale, with $17.9B and $0 in trailing revenue. CTVA is the more profitable business, keeping 6.5% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to LMNR's -10.0%. On growth, VITL holds the edge at +15.4% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $0 | $160M | $8.9B | $17.9B | $784M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$926M | -$15M | $996M | $3.4B | $78M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$1.2B | -$16M | $507M | $1.2B | $48M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$4.2B | -$19M | $361M | $2.1B | -$90M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | — | +0.1% | +37.0% | +33.5% | +35.2% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | — | -15.1% | +7.6% | +13.8% | +8.2% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | — | -10.0% | +5.7% | +6.5% | +6.1% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | — | -12.1% | +4.1% | +11.5% | -11.4% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | -2.4% | +4.1% | +11.0% | +15.4% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -3.0% | +5.8% | -5.5% | +12.6% | -108.1% |
Valuation Metrics
VITL leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 6.6x trailing earnings, VITL trades at a 87% valuation discount to CTVA's 49.4x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), VITL offers better value at 0.17x vs CTVA's 4.14x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $4M | $234M | $7.6B | $53.1B | $426M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $7M | $307M | $9.3B | $51.1B | $431M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.20x | -13.95x | 15.25x | 49.42x | 6.61x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | 14.85x | 21.90x | 12.38x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 0.90x | 4.14x | 0.17x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | 9.35x | 13.38x | 4.22x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | 1.47x | 0.86x | 3.05x | 0.56x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | — | 1.21x | 5.70x | 2.18x | 1.25x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | 16.29x | 18.86x | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — SFM and CTVA each lead in 3 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
SFM delivers a 36.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $36 in annual profit, vs $-3 for AQB. CTVA carries lower financial leverage with a 0.11x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to SFM's 1.39x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), CTVA scores 6/9 vs VITL's 2/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -2.7% | -8.3% | +36.1% | +4.6% | +14.5% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -47.3% | -5.3% | +12.5% | +2.7% | +10.0% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -30.1% | -7.1% | +17.8% | +8.5% | +26.9% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -41.3% | -8.7% | +22.1% | +8.6% | +26.1% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 2 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 0.39x | 1.39x | 0.11x | 0.15x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $3M | $73M | $1.7B | -$1.9B | $5M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $501,295 | $2M | $257M | $4.5B | $49M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $3M | $74M | $1.9B | $2.6B | $53M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -0.01x | -12.53x | 254.65x | 5.82x | 39.83x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
SFM leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in SFM five years ago would be worth $31,381 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $89 for AQB. Over the past 12 months, AQB leads with a +30.2% total return vs VITL's -73.5%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors SFM at 31.2% vs AQB's -55.5% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | 0.0% | +1.5% | +0.4% | +17.0% | -68.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +30.2% | -12.1% | -51.7% | +27.7% | -73.5% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -91.2% | -18.0% | +125.7% | +40.8% | -38.2% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.1% | -23.3% | +213.8% | +68.3% | -54.4% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.8% | -4.1% | +203.9% | +186.7% | -73.0% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -55.5% | -6.4% | +31.2% | +12.1% | -14.8% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — SFM and CTVA each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
SFM is the less volatile stock with a 0.17 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than AQB's 1.00 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. CTVA currently trades 92.3% from its 52-week high vs VITL's 17.9% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.35x | 0.72x | 0.16x | 0.27x | 0.33x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $2.95 | $17.19 | $182.00 | $85.63 | $53.13 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.60 | $12.20 | $64.75 | $60.54 | $8.40 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +32.2% | +75.5% | +44.5% | +92.3% | +17.9% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 51.7 | 49.3 | 54.9 | 53.3 | 38.9 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 34K | 76K | 2.2M | 3.4M | 3.3M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — LMNR and CTVA each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: LMNR as "Buy", SFM as "Buy", CTVA as "Buy", VITL as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 161.4% upside for VITL (target: $25) vs 11.5% for CTVA (target: $88). For income investors, LMNR offers the higher dividend yield at 2.34% vs CTVA's 0.89%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $21.67 | $91.00 | $88.17 | $24.89 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 13 | 43 | 37 | 16 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +2.3% | — | +0.9% | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 0 | 1 | 5 | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $0.30 | — | $0.71 | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +0.8% | +6.2% | +2.0% | 0.0% |
CTVA leads in 1 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow). VITL leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 3 tied.
AQB vs LMNR vs SFM vs CTVA vs VITL: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is AQB or LMNR or SFM or CTVA or VITL a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Vital Farms, Inc.
(VITL) is the stronger pick with 25. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -16. 6% for Limoneira Company (LMNR). Vital Farms, Inc. (VITL) offers the better valuation at 6. 6x trailing P/E (12. 4x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Limoneira Company (LMNR) 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 — AQB or LMNR or SFM or CTVA or VITL?
On trailing P/E, Vital Farms, Inc.
(VITL) is the cheapest at 6. 6x versus Corteva, Inc. at 49. 4x. On forward P/E, Vital Farms, Inc. is actually cheaper at 12. 4x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Vital Farms, Inc. wins at 0. 31x versus Corteva, Inc. 's 1. 83x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — AQB or LMNR or SFM or CTVA or VITL?
Over the past 5 years, Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc.
(SFM) delivered a total return of +213. 8%, compared to -99. 1% for AquaBounty Technologies, Inc. (AQB). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: SFM returned +210. 8% versus AQB's -99. 8%. 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 — AQB or LMNR or SFM or CTVA or VITL?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc.
(SFM) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 16β versus AquaBounty Technologies, Inc. 's 1. 35β — meaning AQB is approximately 747% more volatile than SFM relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Corteva, Inc. (CTVA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 11% versus 139% for Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — AQB or LMNR or SFM or CTVA or VITL?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Vital Farms, Inc.
(VITL) is pulling ahead at 25. 3% versus -16. 6% for Limoneira Company (LMNR). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: AquaBounty Technologies, Inc. grew EPS 87. 7% year-over-year, compared to -332. 5% for Limoneira Company. Over a 3-year CAGR, VITL leads at 28. 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.
06Which has better profit margins — AQB or LMNR or SFM or CTVA or VITL?
Vital Farms, Inc.
(VITL) is the more profitable company, earning 8. 7% net margin versus -10. 0% for Limoneira Company — meaning it keeps 8. 7% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: CTVA leads at 15. 1% versus -15. 1% for LMNR. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CTVA leads at 43. 6%, 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 AQB or LMNR or SFM or CTVA or VITL more undervalued right now?
The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.
By this metric, Vital Farms, Inc. (VITL) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 31x versus Corteva, Inc. 's 1. 83x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Vital Farms, Inc. (VITL) trades at 12. 4x forward P/E versus 21. 9x for Corteva, Inc. — 9. 5x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for VITL: 161. 4% to $24. 89.
08Which pays a better dividend — AQB or LMNR or SFM or CTVA or VITL?
In this comparison, LMNR (2.
3% yield), CTVA (0. 9% yield) pay a dividend. AQB, SFM, VITL do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is AQB or LMNR or SFM or CTVA or VITL better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Corteva, Inc.
(CTVA) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 27), 0. 9% yield, +193. 8% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (CTVA: +193. 8%, AQB: -99. 8%), 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 AQB and LMNR and SFM and CTVA and VITL?
These companies operate in different sectors (AQB (Consumer Defensive) and LMNR (Consumer Defensive) and SFM (Consumer Defensive) and CTVA (Basic Materials) and VITL (Consumer Defensive)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: AQB is a small-cap quality compounder stock; LMNR is a small-cap quality compounder stock; SFM is a small-cap deep-value stock; CTVA is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; VITL is a small-cap high-growth stock. LMNR, CTVA pay a dividend while AQB, SFM, VITL 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.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.