Packaged Foods
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
BON vs SIEB vs CHNR vs BYFC vs NATR
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Financial - Capital Markets
Waste Management
Banks - Regional
Packaged Foods
BON vs SIEB vs CHNR vs BYFC vs NATR — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Packaged Foods | Financial - Capital Markets | Waste Management | Banks - Regional | Packaged Foods |
| Market Cap | $7M | $72M | $42M | $92M | $430M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $43M | $81M | $0.00 | $63M | $490M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-2M | $7M | $-14M | $-25M | $20M |
| Gross Margin | 25.8% | 43.4% | — | 51.9% | 69.9% |
| Operating Margin | 0.6% | 21.7% | — | -38.8% | 5.7% |
| Forward P/E | — | 5.4x | — | — | 21.9x |
| Total Debt | $12M | $7M | $0.00 | $153M | $19M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $6M | $33M | $3M | $11M | $94M |
BON vs SIEB vs CHNR vs BYFC vs NATR — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jun 21 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bon Natural Life Li… (BON) | 100 | 0.1 | -99.9% |
| Siebert Financial C… (SIEB) | 100 | 37.2 | -62.8% |
| China Natural Resou… (CHNR) | 100 | 7.0 | -93.0% |
| Broadway Financial … (BYFC) | 100 | 45.7 | -54.3% |
| Nature's Sunshine P… (NATR) | 100 | 141.3 | +41.3% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: BON vs SIEB vs CHNR vs BYFC vs NATR
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
BON lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
SIEB carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth and value.
- 16.1% NII/revenue growth vs CHNR's -100.0%
- Lower P/E (5.4x vs 21.9x)
- 16.5% margin vs BYFC's -39.3%
Among these 5 stocks, CHNR doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
BYFC is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability is your priority.
- Dividend streak 2 yrs, beta 0.02, yield 3.5%
- Beta 0.02 vs SIEB's 1.58
- 3.5% yield; 2-year raise streak; the other 4 pay no meaningful dividend
NATR ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 5.7%, EPS growth 165.0%, 3Y rev CAGR 4.4%
- 180.2% 10Y total return vs SIEB's 67.2%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.62, Low D/E 11.7%, current ratio 2.28x
- Beta 0.62, current ratio 2.28x
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 16.1% NII/revenue growth vs CHNR's -100.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (5.4x vs 21.9x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 16.5% margin vs BYFC's -39.3% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.02 vs SIEB's 1.58 | |
| Dividends | 3.5% yield; 2-year raise streak; the other 4 pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +85.3% vs SIEB's -52.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 7.6% ROA vs CHNR's -5.3%, ROIC 21.0% vs -0.0% |
BON vs SIEB vs CHNR vs BYFC vs NATR — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
BON vs SIEB vs CHNR vs BYFC vs NATR — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
NATR leads in 2 of 6 categories
BYFC leads 2 • SIEB leads 1 • BON leads 0 • CHNR leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
SIEB leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
NATR and CHNR operate at a comparable scale, with $490M and $0 in trailing revenue. SIEB is the more profitable business, keeping 16.5% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to BYFC's -39.3%. On growth, NATR holds the edge at +8.5% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $43M | $81M | $0 | $63M | $490M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $3M | $11M | -$12M | -$24M | $38M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$2M | $7M | -$14M | -$25M | $20M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$12M | -$49M | -$6M | -$13,000 | $23M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +25.8% | +43.4% | — | +51.9% | +69.9% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +0.6% | +21.7% | — | -38.8% | +5.7% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -3.8% | +16.5% | — | -39.3% | +4.1% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -28.1% | +10.4% | — | -0.0% | +4.7% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -21.5% | — | — | — | +8.5% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -4.6% | -58.2% | +91.3% | -46.8% | +16.0% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — BON and SIEB each lead in 2 of 5 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 5.4x trailing earnings, SIEB trades at a 77% valuation discount to NATR's 23.2x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, SIEB's 2.5x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than NATR's 9.2x.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $7M | $72M | $42M | $92M | $430M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $13M | $47M | $41M | $234M | $355M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -1.69x | 5.42x | -88.68x | -3.05x | 23.16x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | — | — | 21.92x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 0.22x | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 2.47x | — | — | 9.20x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.40x | 0.90x | — | 1.45x | 0.90x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.06x | 0.84x | 3.21x | 0.32x | 2.81x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 8.62x | — | — | 14.90x |
Profitability & Efficiency
NATR leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
NATR delivers a 12.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $12 in annual profit, vs $-16 for CHNR. SIEB carries lower financial leverage with a 0.08x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to BYFC's 0.58x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), SIEB scores 5/9 vs CHNR's 2/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -3.3% | +7.9% | -15.7% | -9.1% | +12.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -2.4% | +1.2% | -5.3% | -1.9% | +7.6% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -2.1% | +15.4% | -0.0% | -3.7% | +21.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -3.1% | +20.3% | -0.0% | -5.6% | +13.8% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.21x | 0.08x | — | 0.58x | 0.12x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $6M | -$26M | -$3M | $142M | -$75M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $6M | $33M | $3M | $11M | $94M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $12M | $7M | $0 | $153M | $19M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -0.53x | 24.59x | -263.29x | -0.87x | 1100.81x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
NATR leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in NATR five years ago would be worth $11,883 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $7 for BON. Over the past 12 months, NATR leads with a +85.3% total return vs SIEB's -52.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors NATR at 31.8% vs BON's -79.7% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -28.7% | -50.1% | +22.2% | +29.3% | +17.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -15.3% | -52.0% | -2.3% | +52.8% | +85.3% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.2% | -19.4% | -79.7% | +30.9% | +129.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.9% | -49.4% | -92.8% | -33.2% | +18.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.9% | +67.2% | -93.5% | -37.6% | +180.2% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -79.7% | -6.9% | -41.2% | +9.4% | +31.8% |
Risk & Volatility
BYFC leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
BYFC is the less volatile stock with a 0.02 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than SIEB's 1.58 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. BYFC currently trades 99.8% from its 52-week high vs SIEB's 31.0% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.75x | 1.58x | 1.12x | 0.02x | 0.62x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $3.40 | $5.77 | $8.20 | $9.86 | $28.14 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $1.13 | $1.68 | $3.16 | $5.60 | $12.90 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +35.9% | +31.0% | +52.4% | +99.8% | +87.2% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 31.0 | 40.8 | 55.2 | 75.4 | 49.6 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 19K | 31K | 893K | 4K | 103K |
Analyst Outlook
BYFC leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
BYFC is the only dividend payer here at 3.54% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | — | — | — | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | — | — | — | $19.50 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | — | — | — | 4 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | +3.5% | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | $0.35 | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | +3.8% |
NATR leads in 2 of 6 categories (Profitability & Efficiency, Total Returns). BYFC leads in 2 (Risk & Volatility, Analyst Outlook). 1 tied.
BON vs SIEB vs CHNR vs BYFC vs NATR: Key Questions Answered
9 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is BON or SIEB or CHNR or BYFC or NATR a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Siebert Financial Corp.
(SIEB) is the stronger pick with 16. 1% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -21. 7% for Bon Natural Life Limited (BON). Siebert Financial Corp. (SIEB) offers the better valuation at 5. 4x trailing P/E, making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc. (NATR) a "Buy" — based on 4 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 — BON or SIEB or CHNR or BYFC or NATR?
On trailing P/E, Siebert Financial Corp.
(SIEB) is the cheapest at 5. 4x versus Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc. at 23. 2x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — BON or SIEB or CHNR or BYFC or NATR?
Over the past 5 years, Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc.
(NATR) delivered a total return of +18. 8%, compared to -99. 9% for Bon Natural Life Limited (BON). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: NATR returned +180. 2% versus BON's -99. 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 — BON or SIEB or CHNR or BYFC or NATR?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Broadway Financial Corporation (BYFC) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
02β versus Siebert Financial Corp. 's 1. 58β — meaning SIEB is approximately 6250% more volatile than BYFC relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Siebert Financial Corp. (SIEB) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 8% versus 58% for Broadway Financial Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — BON or SIEB or CHNR or BYFC or NATR?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Siebert Financial Corp.
(SIEB) is pulling ahead at 16. 1% versus -21. 7% for Bon Natural Life Limited (BON). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc. grew EPS 165. 0% year-over-year, compared to -81. 8% for Broadway Financial Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, NATR leads at 4. 4% 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 — BON or SIEB or CHNR or BYFC or NATR?
Siebert Financial Corp.
(SIEB) is the more profitable company, earning 16. 5% net margin versus -39. 3% for Broadway Financial Corporation — meaning it keeps 16. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: SIEB leads at 21. 7% versus -38. 8% for BYFC. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — NATR leads at 69. 5%, 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.
07Which pays a better dividend — BON or SIEB or CHNR or BYFC or NATR?
In this comparison, BYFC (3.
5% yield) pays a dividend. BON, SIEB, CHNR, NATR do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
08Is BON or SIEB or CHNR or BYFC or NATR better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Broadway Financial Corporation (BYFC) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
02), 3. 5% yield). Siebert Financial Corp. (SIEB) carries a higher beta of 1. 58 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (BYFC: -37. 6%, SIEB: +67. 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.
09What are the main differences between BON and SIEB and CHNR and BYFC and NATR?
These companies operate in different sectors (BON (Consumer Defensive) and SIEB (Financial Services) and CHNR (Industrials) and BYFC (Financial Services) and NATR (Consumer Defensive)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: BON is a small-cap quality compounder stock; SIEB is a small-cap high-growth stock; CHNR is a small-cap quality compounder stock; BYFC is a small-cap income-oriented stock; NATR is a small-cap quality compounder stock. BYFC pays a dividend while BON, SIEB, CHNR, NATR 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.