Agricultural Farm Products
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
EDBL vs AVO vs GRWG vs HYFM vs FRSH
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Food Distribution
Specialty Retail
Agricultural - Machinery
Software - Application
EDBL vs AVO vs GRWG vs HYFM vs FRSH — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Agricultural Farm Products | Food Distribution | Specialty Retail | Agricultural - Machinery | Software - Application |
| Market Cap | $84K | $942M | $85M | $5M | $2.50B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $13M | $1.34B | $162M | $146M | $871M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-14M | $33M | $-24M | $-65M | $180M |
| Gross Margin | 8.1% | 12.0% | 26.8% | 10.2% | 85.0% |
| Operating Margin | -102.1% | 4.8% | -15.7% | -35.8% | 1.8% |
| Forward P/E | — | 20.2x | — | — | 15.9x |
| Total Debt | $4M | $201M | $29M | $170M | $67M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $4M | $65M | $30M | $26M | $632M |
EDBL vs AVO vs GRWG vs HYFM vs FRSH — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 22 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Edible Garden AG In… (EDBL) | 100 | 0.0 | -100.0% |
| Mission Produce, In… (AVO) | 100 | 99.5 | -0.5% |
| GrowGeneration Corp. (GRWG) | 100 | 27.6 | -72.4% |
| Hydrofarm Holdings … (HYFM) | 100 | 1.5 | -98.5% |
| Freshworks Inc. (FRSH) | 100 | 57.3 | -42.7% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: EDBL vs AVO vs GRWG vs HYFM vs FRSH
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
EDBL plays a supporting role in this comparison — it may shine differently against other peers.
AVO is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and long-term compounding is your priority.
- Dividend streak 3 yrs, beta 0.32
- -3.6% 10Y total return vs GRWG's -75.7%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.32, Low D/E 32.4%, current ratio 1.95x
- Beta 0.32 vs GRWG's 1.27
GRWG lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
HYFM is the clearest fit if your priority is defensive.
- Beta 0.91, current ratio 2.72x
FRSH carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure.
- Rev growth 16.4%, EPS growth 296.9%, 3Y rev CAGR 19.0%
- 16.4% revenue growth vs HYFM's -16.0%
- Better valuation composite
- 20.7% margin vs EDBL's -115.4%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 16.4% revenue growth vs HYFM's -16.0% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 20.7% margin vs EDBL's -115.4% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.32 vs GRWG's 1.27 | |
| Dividends | Tie | None of these 5 stocks pay a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +29.8% vs EDBL's -98.3% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 11.9% ROA vs EDBL's -72.0%, ROIC 2.0% vs -173.3% |
EDBL vs AVO vs GRWG vs HYFM vs FRSH — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
EDBL vs AVO vs GRWG vs HYFM vs FRSH — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
AVO leads in 3 of 6 categories
FRSH leads 2 • EDBL leads 0 • GRWG leads 0 • HYFM leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
FRSH leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
AVO is the larger business by revenue, generating $1.3B annually — 106.4x EDBL's $13M. FRSH is the more profitable business, keeping 20.7% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to EDBL's -115.4%. On growth, FRSH holds the edge at +16.5% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $13M | $1.3B | $162M | $146M | $871M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$11M | $91M | -$14M | -$23M | $41M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$14M | $33M | -$24M | -$65M | $180M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$12M | $38M | -$10M | -$8M | $254M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +8.1% | +12.0% | +26.8% | +10.2% | +85.0% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -102.1% | +4.8% | -15.7% | -35.8% | +1.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -115.4% | +2.5% | -14.9% | -44.5% | +20.7% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -92.1% | +2.9% | -6.2% | -5.7% | +29.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +9.0% | -16.6% | +1.0% | -33.3% | +16.5% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -112.3% | -118.2% | +69.2% | -22.7% | — |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — EDBL and FRSH each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 14.3x trailing earnings, FRSH trades at a 43% valuation discount to AVO's 25.1x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, AVO's 10.2x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than FRSH's 27.1x.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $84,098 | $942M | $85M | $5M | $2.5B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $357,098 | $1.1B | $84M | $148M | $1.9B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.01x | 25.09x | -3.55x | -0.07x | 14.33x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 20.15x | — | — | 15.87x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 4.76x | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 10.16x | — | — | 27.13x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.01x | 0.68x | 0.53x | 0.03x | 2.98x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.02x | 1.53x | 0.87x | 0.02x | 2.57x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 25.33x | — | — | 10.18x |
Profitability & Efficiency
FRSH leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
FRSH delivers a 18.5% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $19 in annual profit, vs $-112 for EDBL. FRSH carries lower financial leverage with a 0.06x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to EDBL's 0.93x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), FRSH scores 7/9 vs HYFM's 3/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -112.1% | +5.5% | -22.9% | -32.3% | +18.5% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -72.0% | +3.3% | -15.2% | -16.3% | +11.9% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -173.3% | +7.2% | -16.9% | -9.6% | +2.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -196.2% | +8.6% | -18.8% | -12.1% | +1.2% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 3 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.93x | 0.32x | 0.30x | 0.76x | 0.06x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $273,000 | $136M | -$929,000 | $143M | -$566M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $4M | $65M | $30M | $26M | $632M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $4M | $201M | $29M | $170M | $67M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -9.08x | 10.85x | — | -3.77x | — |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
AVO leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in AVO five years ago would be worth $6,700 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $0 for EDBL. Over the past 12 months, AVO leads with a +29.8% total return vs EDBL's -98.3%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors AVO at 3.7% vs EDBL's -96.5% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -94.4% | +14.9% | -7.8% | -35.0% | -22.2% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -98.3% | +29.8% | +25.7% | -75.4% | -36.5% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -100.0% | +11.6% | -62.0% | -91.9% | -33.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -100.0% | -33.0% | -96.7% | -99.8% | -81.0% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -100.0% | -3.6% | -75.7% | -99.8% | -81.0% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -96.5% | +3.7% | -27.6% | -56.8% | -12.5% |
Risk & Volatility
AVO leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
AVO is the less volatile stock with a 0.32 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than GRWG's 1.27 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. AVO currently trades 85.6% from its 52-week high vs EDBL's 0.6% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.08x | 0.32x | 1.27x | 0.91x | 1.15x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $62.90 | $15.53 | $2.40 | $4.78 | $16.14 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.37 | $10.00 | $0.87 | $0.81 | $6.79 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +0.6% | +85.6% | +59.2% | +21.8% | +55.9% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 19.8 | 47.3 | 63.2 | 54.8 | 57.4 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.9M | 925K | 476K | 41K | 7.8M |
Analyst Outlook
AVO leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: AVO as "Buy", FRSH as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 42.9% upside for AVO (target: $19) vs 26.6% for FRSH (target: $11).
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | — | — | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $19.00 | — | — | $11.43 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 6 | — | — | 18 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 1 | 3 | — | 1 | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +53.5% | +0.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% | +15.5% |
AVO leads in 3 of 6 categories (Total Returns, Risk & Volatility). FRSH leads in 2 (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). 1 tied.
EDBL vs AVO vs GRWG vs HYFM vs FRSH: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is EDBL or AVO or GRWG or HYFM or FRSH a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Freshworks Inc.
(FRSH) is the stronger pick with 16. 4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -16. 0% for Hydrofarm Holdings Group, Inc. (HYFM). Freshworks Inc. (FRSH) offers the better valuation at 14. 3x trailing P/E (15. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Mission Produce, Inc. (AVO) a "Buy" — based on 6 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 — EDBL or AVO or GRWG or HYFM or FRSH?
On trailing P/E, Freshworks Inc.
(FRSH) is the cheapest at 14. 3x versus Mission Produce, Inc. at 25. 1x. On forward P/E, Freshworks Inc. is actually cheaper at 15. 9x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — EDBL or AVO or GRWG or HYFM or FRSH?
Over the past 5 years, Mission Produce, Inc.
(AVO) delivered a total return of -33. 0%, compared to -100. 0% for Edible Garden AG Incorporated (EDBL). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: AVO returned -3. 6% versus EDBL's -100. 0%. 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 — EDBL or AVO or GRWG or HYFM or FRSH?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Mission Produce, Inc.
(AVO) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 32β versus GrowGeneration Corp. 's 1. 27β — meaning GRWG is approximately 303% more volatile than AVO relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Freshworks Inc. (FRSH) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 6% versus 93% for Edible Garden AG Incorporated — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — EDBL or AVO or GRWG or HYFM or FRSH?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Freshworks Inc.
(FRSH) is pulling ahead at 16. 4% versus -16. 0% for Hydrofarm Holdings Group, Inc. (HYFM). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Freshworks Inc. grew EPS 296. 9% year-over-year, compared to -1. 9% for Hydrofarm Holdings Group, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, FRSH leads at 19. 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 — EDBL or AVO or GRWG or HYFM or FRSH?
Freshworks Inc.
(FRSH) is the more profitable company, earning 21. 9% net margin versus -79. 8% for Edible Garden AG Incorporated — meaning it keeps 21. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: AVO leads at 5. 1% versus -66. 9% for EDBL. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — FRSH leads at 85. 0%, 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 EDBL or AVO or GRWG or HYFM or FRSH more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Freshworks Inc.
(FRSH) trades at 15. 9x forward P/E versus 20. 2x for Mission Produce, Inc. — 4. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for AVO: 42. 9% to $19. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — EDBL or AVO or GRWG or HYFM or FRSH?
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 EDBL or AVO or GRWG or HYFM or FRSH better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Mission Produce, Inc.
(AVO) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 32)). Both have compounded well over 10 years (AVO: -3. 6%, GRWG: -75. 7%), 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 EDBL and AVO and GRWG and HYFM and FRSH?
These companies operate in different sectors (EDBL (Consumer Defensive) and AVO (Consumer Defensive) and GRWG (Consumer Cyclical) and HYFM (Industrials) and FRSH (Technology)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: EDBL is a small-cap quality compounder stock; AVO is a small-cap quality compounder stock; GRWG is a small-cap quality compounder stock; HYFM is a small-cap quality compounder stock; FRSH is a small-cap high-growth 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 all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.