Beverages - Non-Alcoholic
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
COCO vs PEP vs KO vs CELH vs MNST
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic
COCO vs PEP vs KO vs CELH vs MNST — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Beverages - Non-Alcoholic | Beverages - Non-Alcoholic | Beverages - Non-Alcoholic | Beverages - Non-Alcoholic | Beverages - Non-Alcoholic |
| Market Cap | $3.92B | $213.14B | $340.74B | $8.43B | $75.51B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $659M | $93.92B | $49.28B | $2.52B | $8.29B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $83M | $8.24B | $13.70B | $108M | $1.91B |
| Gross Margin | 37.2% | 54.1% | 61.7% | 50.4% | 55.8% |
| Operating Margin | 14.7% | 12.2% | 29.3% | 8.8% | 29.2% |
| Forward P/E | 41.4x | 18.0x | 24.3x | 20.4x | 34.3x |
| Total Debt | $13M | $49.90B | $45.49B | $670M | $0.00 |
| Cash & Equiv. | $197M | $9.16B | $10.27B | $399M | $2.09B |
COCO vs PEP vs KO vs CELH vs MNST — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Oct 21 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Vita Coco Compa… (COCO) | 100 | 508.4 | +408.4% |
| PepsiCo, Inc. (PEP) | 100 | 96.5 | -3.5% |
| The Coca-Cola Compa… (KO) | 100 | 140.4 | +40.4% |
| Celsius Holdings, I… (CELH) | 100 | 102.0 | +2.0% |
| Monster Beverage Co… (MNST) | 100 | 181.6 | +81.6% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: COCO vs PEP vs KO vs CELH vs MNST
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
COCO ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth exposure and sleep-well-at-night.
- Rev growth 18.2%, EPS growth 26.6%, 3Y rev CAGR 12.5%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.65, Low D/E 3.9%, current ratio 3.62x
- +96.1% vs CELH's -7.7%
PEP has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in income & stability and defensive.
- Dividend streak 25 yrs, beta 0.03, yield 3.6%
- Beta 0.03, yield 3.6%, current ratio 0.85x
- Beta 0.03 vs CELH's 1.29
- 3.6% yield, 25-year raise streak, vs KO's 2.6%, (2 stocks pay no dividend)
KO is the clearest fit if your priority is quality.
- 27.8% margin vs CELH's 4.3%
CELH is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if long-term compounding and valuation efficiency is your priority.
- 39.0% 10Y total return vs COCO's 407.7%
- PEG 0.44 vs PEP's 5.52
- 85.5% revenue growth vs KO's 1.9%
- Lower P/E (20.4x vs 34.3x), PEG 0.44 vs 4.28
MNST is the clearest fit if your priority is efficiency.
- 19.1% ROA vs CELH's 2.7%, ROIC 33.1% vs 19.7%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 85.5% revenue growth vs KO's 1.9% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (20.4x vs 34.3x), PEG 0.44 vs 4.28 | |
| Quality / Margins | 27.8% margin vs CELH's 4.3% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.03 vs CELH's 1.29 | |
| Dividends | 3.6% yield, 25-year raise streak, vs KO's 2.6%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +96.1% vs CELH's -7.7% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 19.1% ROA vs CELH's 2.7%, ROIC 33.1% vs 19.7% |
COCO vs PEP vs KO vs CELH vs MNST — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
COCO vs PEP vs KO vs CELH vs MNST — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
KO leads in 1 of 6 categories
MNST leads 1 • COCO leads 1 • PEP leads 0 • CELH leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
KO leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
PEP is the larger business by revenue, generating $93.9B annually — 142.6x COCO's $659M. KO is the more profitable business, keeping 27.8% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to CELH's 4.3%. On growth, CELH holds the edge at +117.2% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $659M | $93.9B | $49.3B | $2.5B | $8.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $98M | $14.3B | $15.5B | $251M | $2.5B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $83M | $8.2B | $13.7B | $108M | $1.9B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $65M | $7.7B | $12.6B | $323M | $0 |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +37.2% | +54.1% | +61.7% | +50.4% | +55.8% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +14.7% | +12.2% | +29.3% | +8.8% | +29.2% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +12.6% | +8.8% | +27.8% | +4.3% | +23.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +9.9% | +8.2% | +25.5% | +12.9% | — |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +37.3% | +5.6% | +12.1% | +117.2% | +17.6% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +61.3% | +66.7% | +18.2% | +130.8% | +64.3% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — PEP and CELH each lead in 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 26.0x trailing earnings, PEP trades at a 80% valuation discount to CELH's 131.2x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), KO offers better value at 2.33x vs PEP's 7.97x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $3.9B | $213.1B | $340.7B | $8.4B | $75.5B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $3.7B | $253.9B | $376.0B | $8.7B | $73.4B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 57.68x | 25.99x | 26.04x | 131.20x | 39.79x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 41.37x | 18.01x | 24.33x | 20.41x | 34.26x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 3.83x | 7.97x | 2.33x | 2.80x | 4.97x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 44.62x | 17.75x | 25.38x | 17.47x | 30.35x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 6.43x | 2.27x | 7.11x | 3.35x | 9.10x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 12.42x | 10.41x | 9.96x | 2.64x | 9.15x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 100.45x | 27.78x | 64.34x | 26.06x | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
MNST leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
KO delivers a 41.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $41 in annual profit, vs $5 for CELH. COCO carries lower financial leverage with a 0.04x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to PEP's 2.43x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), KO scores 7/9 vs COCO's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +25.4% | +40.1% | +41.1% | +4.7% | +23.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +18.1% | +7.7% | +13.1% | +2.7% | +19.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +51.2% | +14.9% | +15.8% | +19.7% | +33.1% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +27.4% | +16.1% | +17.3% | +17.2% | +31.9% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.04x | 2.43x | 1.33x | 0.23x | — |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$184M | $40.7B | $35.2B | $271M | -$2.1B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $197M | $9.2B | $10.3B | $399M | $2.1B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $13M | $49.9B | $45.5B | $670M | $0 |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | 10.34x | 10.70x | 3.28x | 299.84x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
COCO leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in COCO five years ago would be worth $50,769 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $12,437 for PEP. Over the past 12 months, COCO leads with a +96.1% total return vs CELH's -7.7%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors COCO at 43.4% vs PEP's -3.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +28.4% | +10.7% | +15.3% | -31.3% | +1.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +96.1% | +23.6% | +13.3% | -7.7% | +28.6% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +195.2% | -11.0% | +33.1% | -7.9% | +30.8% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +407.7% | +24.4% | +62.3% | +97.7% | +62.5% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +407.7% | +89.5% | +112.5% | +3900.0% | +212.7% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +43.4% | -3.8% | +10.0% | -2.7% | +9.4% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — COCO and KO each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
KO is the less volatile stock with a -0.09 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than CELH's 1.29 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. COCO currently trades 98.6% from its 52-week high vs CELH's 49.1% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.65x | 0.03x | -0.09x | 1.29x | 0.26x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $69.58 | $171.48 | $82.00 | $66.74 | $87.38 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $30.54 | $127.60 | $65.35 | $31.80 | $58.09 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +98.6% | +90.9% | +96.5% | +49.1% | +88.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 76.9 | 47.6 | 58.6 | 41.8 | 48.6 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.4M | 5.7M | 13.4M | 6.9M | 5.2M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — PEP and KO each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: COCO as "Buy", PEP as "Hold", KO as "Buy", CELH as "Buy", MNST as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 79.9% upside for CELH (target: $59) vs -1.1% for COCO (target: $68). For income investors, PEP offers the higher dividend yield at 3.57% vs CELH's 0.48%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Hold | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $67.86 | $174.00 | $85.71 | $59.00 | $85.38 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 14 | 45 | 48 | 22 | 43 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +3.6% | +2.6% | +0.5% | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 25 | 35 | 1 | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $5.57 | $2.04 | $0.16 | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.3% | +0.5% | +0.2% | +0.5% | 0.0% |
KO leads in 1 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow). MNST leads in 1 (Profitability & Efficiency). 3 tied.
COCO vs PEP vs KO vs CELH vs MNST: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is COCO or PEP or KO or CELH or MNST a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Celsius Holdings, Inc.
(CELH) is the stronger pick with 85. 5% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 1. 9% for The Coca-Cola Company (KO). PepsiCo, Inc. (PEP) offers the better valuation at 26. 0x trailing P/E (18. 0x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate The Vita Coco Company, Inc. (COCO) a "Buy" — based on 14 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 — COCO or PEP or KO or CELH or MNST?
On trailing P/E, PepsiCo, Inc.
(PEP) is the cheapest at 26. 0x versus Celsius Holdings, Inc. at 131. 2x. On forward P/E, PepsiCo, Inc. is actually cheaper at 18. 0x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Celsius Holdings, Inc. wins at 0. 44x versus PepsiCo, Inc. 's 5. 52x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — COCO or PEP or KO or CELH or MNST?
Over the past 5 years, The Vita Coco Company, Inc.
(COCO) delivered a total return of +407. 7%, compared to +24. 4% for PepsiCo, Inc. (PEP). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CELH returned +39. 0% versus PEP's +89. 5%. 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 — COCO or PEP or KO or CELH or MNST?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the lower-risk stock at -0.
09β versus Celsius Holdings, Inc. 's 1. 29β — meaning CELH is approximately -1567% more volatile than KO relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, The Vita Coco Company, Inc. (COCO) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 4% versus 2% for PepsiCo, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — COCO or PEP or KO or CELH or MNST?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Celsius Holdings, Inc.
(CELH) is pulling ahead at 85. 5% versus 1. 9% for The Coca-Cola Company (KO). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Monster Beverage Corporation grew EPS 30. 2% year-over-year, compared to -44. 4% for Celsius Holdings, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, CELH leads at 56. 7% 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 — COCO or PEP or KO or CELH or MNST?
The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the more profitable company, earning 27.
3% net margin versus 4. 3% for Celsius Holdings, Inc. — meaning it keeps 27. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: MNST leads at 29. 2% versus 12. 2% for PEP. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — KO leads at 61. 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 COCO or PEP or KO or CELH or MNST 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, Celsius Holdings, Inc. (CELH) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 44x versus PepsiCo, Inc. 's 5. 52x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, PepsiCo, Inc. (PEP) trades at 18. 0x forward P/E versus 41. 4x for The Vita Coco Company, Inc. — 23. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for CELH: 79. 9% to $59. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — COCO or PEP or KO or CELH or MNST?
In this comparison, PEP (3.
6% yield), KO (2. 6% yield), CELH (0. 5% yield) pay a dividend. COCO, MNST do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is COCO or PEP or KO or CELH or MNST better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0.
09), 2. 6% yield, +112. 5% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (KO: +112. 5%, CELH: +39. 0%), 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 COCO and PEP and KO and CELH and MNST?
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: COCO is a small-cap high-growth stock; PEP is a large-cap income-oriented stock; KO is a large-cap quality compounder stock; CELH is a small-cap high-growth stock; MNST is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. PEP, KO pay a dividend while COCO, CELH, MNST 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.