Engineering & Construction
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
BNC vs HYFM vs GRWG vs SMG vs IIPR
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Agricultural - Machinery
Specialty Retail
Agricultural Inputs
REIT - Industrial
BNC vs HYFM vs GRWG vs SMG vs IIPR — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Engineering & Construction | Agricultural - Machinery | Specialty Retail | Agricultural Inputs | REIT - Industrial |
| Market Cap | $2M | $5M | $82M | $3.46B | $1.59B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $125M | $146M | $162M | $3.35B | $263M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $276M | $-65M | $-24M | $90M | $120M |
| Gross Margin | 90.8% | 10.2% | 19.8% | 31.0% | 60.3% |
| Operating Margin | 65.6% | -35.8% | -15.7% | 11.7% | 46.7% |
| Forward P/E | 0.7x | — | — | 13.6x | 13.1x |
| Total Debt | $270K | $170M | $29M | $2.38B | $394M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $9M | $26M | $30M | $37M | $48M |
BNC vs HYFM vs GRWG vs SMG vs IIPR — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Dec 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hydrofarm Holdings … (HYFM) | 100 | 0.2 | -99.8% |
| GrowGeneration Corp. (GRWG) | 100 | 3.4 | -96.6% |
| The Scotts Miracle-… (SMG) | 100 | 29.9 | -70.1% |
| Innovative Industri… (IIPR) | 100 | 30.4 | -69.6% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: BNC vs HYFM vs GRWG vs SMG vs IIPR
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
BNC has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in value and quality.
- Lower P/E (0.7x vs 13.6x)
- 220.3% margin vs HYFM's -44.5%
HYFM ranks third and is worth considering specifically for sleep-well-at-night.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.73, Low D/E 75.8%, current ratio 2.72x
- Beta 0.73 vs BNC's 2.48
GRWG is the clearest fit if your priority is momentum.
- +22.3% vs BNC's -91.3%
SMG is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth -3.9%, EPS growth 5.0%, 3Y rev CAGR -4.5%
- -3.9% revenue growth vs BNC's -59.4%
IIPR is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and long-term compounding is your priority.
- Dividend streak 9 yrs, beta 0.91, yield 13.7%
- 432.0% 10Y total return vs BNC's 10.1%
- Beta 0.91, yield 13.7%, current ratio 0.15x
- 13.7% yield, 9-year raise streak, vs SMG's 4.4%, (3 stocks pay no dividend)
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | -3.9% revenue growth vs BNC's -59.4% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (0.7x vs 13.6x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 220.3% margin vs HYFM's -44.5% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.73 vs BNC's 2.48 | |
| Dividends | 13.7% yield, 9-year raise streak, vs SMG's 4.4%, (3 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +22.3% vs BNC's -91.3% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 5.1% ROA vs HYFM's -16.3%, ROIC 4.3% vs -9.6% |
BNC vs HYFM vs GRWG vs SMG vs IIPR — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
BNC vs HYFM vs GRWG vs SMG vs IIPR — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
BNC leads in 2 of 6 categories
IIPR leads 2 • HYFM leads 0 • GRWG leads 0 • SMG leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
BNC leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
SMG is the larger business by revenue, generating $3.4B annually — 26.8x BNC's $125M. BNC is the more profitable business, keeping 2.2% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to HYFM's -44.5%. On growth, BNC holds the edge at +297.2% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $125M | $146M | $162M | $3.4B | $263M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $82M | -$23M | -$14M | $466M | $197M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $276M | -$65M | -$24M | $90M | $120M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $255M | -$8M | -$10M | $358M | $144M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +90.8% | +10.2% | +19.8% | +31.0% | +60.3% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +65.6% | -35.8% | -15.7% | +11.7% | +46.7% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +2.2% | -44.5% | -14.9% | +2.7% | +45.6% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +2.0% | -5.7% | -6.2% | +10.7% | +54.7% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +297.2% | -33.3% | +1.0% | -15.0% | -3.8% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +377.1% | -22.7% | +69.2% | -78.5% | -1.0% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — HYFM and IIPR each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 14.2x trailing earnings, IIPR trades at a 41% valuation discount to SMG's 24.1x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, IIPR's 9.8x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than SMG's 13.4x.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $2M | $5M | $82M | $3.5B | $1.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | -$7M | $148M | $81M | $5.8B | $1.9B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.73x | -0.07x | -3.42x | 24.12x | 14.19x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 0.66x | — | — | 13.60x | 13.13x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — | 3.79x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | — | 13.38x | 9.79x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.82x | 0.02x | 0.51x | 1.01x | 5.99x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.25x | 0.02x | 0.84x | — | 0.86x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | — | 12.62x | 9.12x |
Profitability & Efficiency
BNC leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
IIPR delivers a 6.4% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $6 in annual profit, vs $-32 for HYFM. BNC carries lower financial leverage with a 0.03x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to HYFM's 0.76x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), SMG scores 7/9 vs BNC's 2/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +0.1% | -32.3% | -22.9% | — | +6.4% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +0.0% | -16.3% | -15.2% | +2.9% | +5.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -30.9% | -9.6% | -16.1% | +13.3% | +4.3% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -29.0% | -12.1% | -17.9% | +17.4% | +5.8% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.03x | 0.76x | 0.30x | — | 0.21x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$9M | $143M | -$929,000 | $2.3B | $346M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $9M | $26M | $30M | $37M | $48M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $269,798 | $170M | $29M | $2.4B | $394M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 124.45x | -3.77x | — | 3.08x | 6.67x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
IIPR leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in IIPR five years ago would be worth $5,496 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $17 for HYFM. Over the past 12 months, GRWG leads with a +22.3% total return vs BNC's -91.3%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors IIPR at 4.0% vs BNC's -55.6% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -51.8% | -37.5% | -11.0% | +1.3% | +16.6% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -91.3% | -73.8% | +22.3% | +9.1% | +13.4% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -91.3% | -91.0% | -66.1% | +2.3% | +12.6% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -91.3% | -99.8% | -96.3% | -68.1% | -45.0% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +1007.1% | -99.8% | -76.6% | +32.7% | +432.0% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -55.6% | -55.2% | -30.3% | +0.8% | +4.0% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — HYFM and IIPR each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
HYFM is the less volatile stock with a 0.73 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than BNC's 2.48 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. IIPR currently trades 90.8% from its 52-week high vs BNC's 7.3% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 2.48x | 0.73x | 1.15x | 1.12x | 0.91x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $42.50 | $4.78 | $2.40 | $72.35 | $61.40 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $2.39 | $0.81 | $0.87 | $52.00 | $44.58 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +7.3% | +20.9% | +57.1% | +82.3% | +90.8% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 53.9 | 47.6 | 63.9 | 42.4 | 55.6 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 250K | 42K | 486K | 962K | 291K |
Analyst Outlook
IIPR leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: SMG as "Buy", IIPR as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 51.8% upside for IIPR (target: $85) vs 22.0% for SMG (target: $73). For income investors, IIPR offers the higher dividend yield at 13.67% vs SMG's 4.41%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | — | — | Buy | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | — | — | $72.67 | $84.67 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | — | — | 17 | 11 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | +4.4% | +13.7% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 9 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | $2.63 | $7.62 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | +0.3% | +0.5% | +1.3% |
BNC leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). IIPR leads in 2 (Total Returns, Analyst Outlook). 2 tied.
BNC vs HYFM vs GRWG vs SMG vs IIPR: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is BNC or HYFM or GRWG or SMG or IIPR a better buy right now?
For growth investors, The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company (SMG) is the stronger pick with -3.
9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -59. 4% for CEA Industries Inc. Common Stock (BNC). Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. (IIPR) offers the better valuation at 14. 2x trailing P/E (13. 1x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company (SMG) a "Buy" — based on 17 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 — BNC or HYFM or GRWG or SMG or IIPR?
On trailing P/E, Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc.
(IIPR) is the cheapest at 14. 2x versus The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company at 24. 1x. On forward P/E, CEA Industries Inc. Common Stock is actually cheaper at 0. 7x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — BNC or HYFM or GRWG or SMG or IIPR?
Over the past 5 years, Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc.
(IIPR) delivered a total return of -45. 0%, compared to -99. 8% for Hydrofarm Holdings Group, Inc. (HYFM). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: BNC returned +1007% versus HYFM'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 — BNC or HYFM or GRWG or SMG or IIPR?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Hydrofarm Holdings Group, Inc.
(HYFM) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 73β versus CEA Industries Inc. Common Stock's 2. 48β — meaning BNC is approximately 239% more volatile than HYFM relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, CEA Industries Inc. Common Stock (BNC) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 3% versus 76% for Hydrofarm Holdings Group, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — BNC or HYFM or GRWG or SMG or IIPR?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company (SMG) is pulling ahead at -3.
9% versus -59. 4% for CEA Industries Inc. Common Stock (BNC). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company grew EPS 504. 9% year-over-year, compared to -28. 8% for Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, IIPR leads at -1. 3% 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 — BNC or HYFM or GRWG or SMG or IIPR?
Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc.
(IIPR) is the more profitable company, earning 43. 0% net margin versus -112. 2% for CEA Industries Inc. Common Stock — meaning it keeps 43. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: IIPR leads at 46. 7% versus -113. 1% for BNC. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — IIPR leads at 88. 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.
07Is BNC or HYFM or GRWG or SMG or IIPR more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, CEA Industries Inc.
Common Stock (BNC) trades at 0. 7x forward P/E versus 13. 6x for The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company — 12. 9x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for IIPR: 51. 8% to $84. 67.
08Which pays a better dividend — BNC or HYFM or GRWG or SMG or IIPR?
In this comparison, IIPR (13.
7% yield), SMG (4. 4% yield) pay a dividend. BNC, HYFM, GRWG do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is BNC or HYFM or GRWG or SMG or IIPR better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc.
(IIPR) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 91), 13. 7% yield, +432. 0% 10Y return). CEA Industries Inc. Common Stock (BNC) carries a higher beta of 2. 48 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (IIPR: +432. 0%, BNC: +1007%), 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 BNC and HYFM and GRWG and SMG and IIPR?
These companies operate in different sectors (BNC (Industrials) and HYFM (Industrials) and GRWG (Consumer Cyclical) and SMG (Basic Materials) and IIPR (Real Estate)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: BNC is a small-cap quality compounder stock; HYFM is a small-cap quality compounder stock; GRWG is a small-cap quality compounder stock; SMG is a small-cap income-oriented stock; IIPR is a small-cap deep-value stock. SMG, IIPR pay a dividend while BNC, HYFM, GRWG 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.