Packaged Foods
Compare Stocks
2 / 10Stock Comparison
BGS vs CENT
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Packaged Foods
BGS vs CENT — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Industry | Packaged Foods | Packaged Foods |
| Market Cap | $430M | $2.29B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $1.83B | $3.16B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-43M | $171M |
| Gross Margin | 21.8% | 32.2% |
| Operating Margin | 5.3% | 8.2% |
| Forward P/E | 9.6x | 13.0x |
| Total Debt | $2.00B | $1.44B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $56M | $882M |
BGS vs CENT — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| B&G Foods, Inc. (BGS) | 100 | 23.2 | -76.8% |
| Central Garden & Pe… (CENT) | 100 | 128.2 | +28.2% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: BGS vs CENT
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
BGS is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 1 yrs, beta 0.40
- Lower volatility, beta 0.40, current ratio 3.53x
- Beta 0.40, current ratio 3.53x
CENT carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth -2.2%, EPS growth 57.4%, 3Y rev CAGR -2.1%
- 148.2% 10Y total return vs BGS's -53.1%
- -2.2% revenue growth vs BGS's -5.4%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | -2.2% revenue growth vs BGS's -5.4% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (9.6x vs 13.0x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 5.4% margin vs BGS's -2.4% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.40 vs CENT's 0.65 | |
| Dividends | Tie | Neither stock pays a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +6.6% vs BGS's -2.7% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 4.7% ROA vs BGS's -1.5%, ROIC 9.1% vs 2.9% |
BGS vs CENT — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
BGS vs CENT — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 2 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
CENT leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
CENT is the larger business by revenue, generating $3.2B annually — 1.7x BGS's $1.8B. CENT is the more profitable business, keeping 5.4% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to BGS's -2.4%. On growth, CENT holds the edge at +8.7% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $1.8B | $3.2B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $157M | $302M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$43M | $171M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $79M | $282M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +21.8% | +32.2% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +5.3% | +8.2% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -2.4% | +5.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +4.3% | +8.9% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -2.2% | +8.7% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +93.2% | +30.6% |
Valuation Metrics
BGS leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
On an enterprise value basis, CENT's 8.2x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than BGS's 24.4x.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $430M | $2.3B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $2.4B | $2.9B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -9.96x | 14.44x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 9.57x | 12.95x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 4.82x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 24.45x | 8.15x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.24x | 0.73x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.95x | 1.48x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 6.08x | 7.88x |
Profitability & Efficiency
CENT leads this category, winning 9 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
CENT delivers a 10.7% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $11 in annual profit, vs $-9 for BGS. CENT carries lower financial leverage with a 0.91x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to BGS's 4.42x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), CENT scores 8/9 vs BGS's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -8.9% | +10.7% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -1.5% | +4.7% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +2.9% | +9.1% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +3.6% | +8.7% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 8 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 4.42x | 0.91x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $1.9B | $558M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $56M | $882M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $2.0B | $1.4B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 0.67x | 1200.51x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
CENT leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in CENT five years ago would be worth $7,926 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $3,674 for BGS. Over the past 12 months, CENT leads with a +6.6% total return vs BGS's -2.7%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CENT at 7.8% vs BGS's -20.7% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +32.6% | +15.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -2.7% | +6.6% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -50.1% | +25.1% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -63.3% | -20.7% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -53.1% | +148.2% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -20.7% | +7.8% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — BGS and CENT each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
BGS is the less volatile stock with a 0.40 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than CENT's 0.65 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. CENT currently trades 89.3% from its 52-week high vs BGS's 83.2% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.40x | 0.65x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $6.47 | $41.25 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $3.67 | $28.77 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +83.2% | +89.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 54.5 | 41.0 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 2.0M | 73K |
Analyst Outlook
CENT leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Wall Street rates BGS as "Hold" and CENT as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 38.5% upside for CENT (target: $51) vs 2.2% for BGS (target: $6).
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $5.50 | $51.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 17 | 10 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 1 | 2 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +6.8% |
CENT leads in 4 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). BGS leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 1 tied.
BGS vs CENT: Frequently Asked Questions
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is BGS or CENT a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Central Garden & Pet Company (CENT) is the stronger pick with -2.
2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -5. 4% for B&G Foods, Inc. (BGS). Central Garden & Pet Company (CENT) offers the better valuation at 14. 4x trailing P/E (13. 0x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Central Garden & Pet Company (CENT) a "Buy" — based on 10 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 — BGS or CENT?
On forward P/E, B&G Foods, Inc.
is actually cheaper at 9. 6x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — BGS or CENT?
Over the past 5 years, Central Garden & Pet Company (CENT) delivered a total return of -20.
7%, compared to -63. 3% for B&G Foods, Inc. (BGS). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CENT returned +148. 2% versus BGS's -53. 1%. 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 — BGS or CENT?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), B&G Foods, Inc.
(BGS) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 40β versus Central Garden & Pet Company's 0. 65β — meaning CENT is approximately 62% more volatile than BGS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Central Garden & Pet Company (CENT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 91% versus 4% for B&G Foods, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — BGS or CENT?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Central Garden & Pet Company (CENT) is pulling ahead at -2.
2% versus -5. 4% for B&G Foods, Inc. (BGS). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: B&G Foods, Inc. grew EPS 83. 0% year-over-year, compared to 57. 4% for Central Garden & Pet Company. Over a 3-year CAGR, CENT leads at -2. 1% 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 — BGS or CENT?
Central Garden & Pet Company (CENT) is the more profitable company, earning 5.
2% net margin versus -2. 4% for B&G Foods, Inc. — meaning it keeps 5. 2% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: CENT leads at 8. 5% versus 5. 3% for BGS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CENT leads at 31. 1%, 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 BGS or CENT more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, B&G Foods, Inc.
(BGS) trades at 9. 6x forward P/E versus 13. 0x for Central Garden & Pet Company — 3. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for CENT: 38. 5% to $51. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — BGS or CENT?
None of the stocks in this comparison currently pay a material dividend.
All are effectively zero-yield and should be held for capital appreciation rather than income.
09Is BGS or CENT better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, B&G Foods, Inc.
(BGS) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 40)). Both have compounded well over 10 years (BGS: -53. 1%, CENT: +148. 2%), 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 BGS and CENT?
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.
In terms of investment character: BGS is a small-cap quality compounder stock; CENT is a small-cap deep-value stock. 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.