Packaged Foods
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
LSF vs BYFC vs SMPL vs CARV
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Banks - Regional
Packaged Foods
Banks - Regional
LSF vs BYFC vs SMPL vs CARV — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Packaged Foods | Banks - Regional | Packaged Foods | Banks - Regional |
| Market Cap | $34M | $92M | $1.24B | $9M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $38M | $63M | $1.45B | $37M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-2M | $-25M | $91M | $-13M |
| Gross Margin | 49.2% | 51.9% | 34.0% | 56.3% |
| Operating Margin | -9.9% | -38.8% | 14.4% | -36.8% |
| Forward P/E | — | — | 7.4x | — |
| Total Debt | $246K | $153M | $304M | $29M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $8M | $11M | $98M | $50M |
LSF vs BYFC vs SMPL vs CARV — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Sep 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Laird Superfood, In… (LSF) | 100 | 6.5 | -93.5% |
| Broadway Financial … (BYFC) | 100 | 72.9 | -27.1% |
| The Simply Good Foo… (SMPL) | 100 | 55.6 | -44.4% |
| Carver Bancorp, Inc. (CARV) | 100 | 25.6 | -74.4% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: LSF vs BYFC vs SMPL vs CARV
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
LSF is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth 26.5%, EPS growth 83.5%, 3Y rev CAGR 5.6%
- 26.5% revenue growth vs CARV's -8.3%
BYFC carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 2 yrs, beta 0.02, yield 3.5%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.02, Low D/E 58.1%, current ratio 0.03x
- Beta 0.02 vs LSF's 1.27
- 3.5% yield; 2-year raise streak; the other 3 pay no meaningful dividend
SMPL is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if long-term compounding and defensive is your priority.
- 3.7% 10Y total return vs BYFC's -37.6%
- Beta 0.38, current ratio 3.64x
- Better valuation composite
- 6.3% margin vs BYFC's -39.3%
CARV is the clearest fit if your priority is bank quality.
- NIM 2.6% vs BYFC's 2.5%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 26.5% revenue growth vs CARV's -8.3% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 6.3% margin vs BYFC's -39.3% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.02 vs LSF's 1.27 | |
| Dividends | 3.5% yield; 2-year raise streak; the other 3 pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +52.8% vs SMPL's -64.8% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 3.7% ROA vs LSF's -10.0%, ROIC 8.1% vs -28.8% |
LSF vs BYFC vs SMPL vs CARV — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
LSF vs BYFC vs SMPL vs CARV — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
SMPL leads in 2 of 6 categories
BYFC leads 2 • CARV leads 1 • LSF leads 1
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
SMPL leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
SMPL is the larger business by revenue, generating $1.4B annually — 38.8x CARV's $37M. SMPL is the more profitable business, keeping 6.3% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to BYFC's -39.3%. On growth, SMPL holds the edge at -0.3% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $38M | $63M | $1.4B | $37M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$4M | -$24M | $231M | -$10M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$2M | -$25M | $91M | -$13M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$3M | -$13,000 | $174M | -$9M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +49.2% | +51.9% | +34.0% | +56.3% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -9.9% | -38.8% | +14.4% | -36.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -4.9% | -39.3% | +6.3% | -36.8% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -6.6% | -0.0% | +12.0% | -34.6% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -74.5% | — | -0.3% | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -4.6% | -46.8% | -31.6% | -12.2% |
Valuation Metrics
CARV leads this category, winning 2 of 4 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $34M | $92M | $1.2B | $9M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $26M | $234M | $1.4B | -$12M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -17.50x | -3.05x | 12.20x | -0.63x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | 7.39x | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 0.51x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | 5.97x | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.78x | 1.45x | 0.86x | 0.24x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 2.37x | 0.32x | 0.70x | 0.29x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 39.99x | — | 7.86x | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
SMPL leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
SMPL delivers a 5.2% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $5 in annual profit, vs $-48 for CARV. LSF carries lower financial leverage with a 0.02x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to CARV's 0.98x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), LSF scores 6/9 vs CARV's 2/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -14.8% | -9.1% | +5.2% | -48.4% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -10.0% | -1.9% | +3.7% | -1.9% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -28.8% | -3.7% | +8.1% | -13.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -16.1% | -5.6% | +9.4% | -15.4% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 2 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.02x | 0.58x | 0.17x | 0.98x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$8M | $142M | $206M | -$21M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $8M | $11M | $98M | $50M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $246,430 | $153M | $304M | $29M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | -0.87x | 6.77x | -0.71x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
LSF leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in BYFC five years ago would be worth $6,685 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $889 for LSF. Over the past 12 months, BYFC leads with a +52.8% total return vs SMPL's -64.8%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors LSF at 52.4% vs SMPL's -31.5% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +41.3% | +29.3% | -36.4% | +19.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -53.1% | +52.8% | -64.8% | +18.4% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +253.9% | +30.9% | -67.8% | -61.3% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -91.1% | -33.2% | -64.3% | -79.3% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -92.3% | -37.6% | +3.7% | -53.6% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +52.4% | +9.4% | -31.5% | -27.2% |
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 LSF's 1.27 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 SMPL's 33.7% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.26x | 0.01x | 0.34x | 0.16x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $7.94 | $9.86 | $36.92 | $3.85 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $1.96 | $5.60 | $10.21 | $1.07 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +39.7% | +99.8% | +33.7% | +43.4% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 53.8 | 75.4 | 42.9 | 50.2 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 47K | 4K | 2.8M | 4K |
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 | — | — | $18.33 | — |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | — | 24 | — |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +3.5% | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 2 | — | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $0.35 | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.2% | 0.0% | +4.1% | 0.0% |
SMPL leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). BYFC leads in 2 (Risk & Volatility, Analyst Outlook).
LSF vs BYFC vs SMPL vs CARV: Key Questions Answered
8 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is LSF or BYFC or SMPL or CARV a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Laird Superfood, Inc.
(LSF) is the stronger pick with 26. 5% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -8. 3% for Carver Bancorp, Inc. (CARV). The Simply Good Foods Company (SMPL) offers the better valuation at 12. 2x trailing P/E (7. 4x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate The Simply Good Foods Company (SMPL) a "Buy" — based on 24 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 is the better long-term investment — LSF or BYFC or SMPL or CARV?
Over the past 5 years, Broadway Financial Corporation (BYFC) delivered a total return of -33.
2%, compared to -91. 1% for Laird Superfood, Inc. (LSF). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: SMPL returned +2. 2% versus LSF's -92. 7%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
03Which is safer — LSF or BYFC or SMPL or CARV?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Broadway Financial Corporation (BYFC) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
01β versus Laird Superfood, Inc. 's 1. 26β — meaning LSF is approximately 15133% more volatile than BYFC relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Laird Superfood, Inc. (LSF) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 2% versus 98% for Carver Bancorp, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
04Which is growing faster — LSF or BYFC or SMPL or CARV?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Laird Superfood, Inc.
(LSF) is pulling ahead at 26. 5% versus -8. 3% for Carver Bancorp, Inc. (CARV). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Laird Superfood, Inc. grew EPS 83. 5% year-over-year, compared to -81. 8% for Broadway Financial Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, SMPL leads at 7. 5% 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.
05Which has better profit margins — LSF or BYFC or SMPL or CARV?
The Simply Good Foods Company (SMPL) is the more profitable company, earning 7.
1% net margin versus -39. 3% for Broadway Financial Corporation — meaning it keeps 7. 1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: SMPL leads at 15. 1% versus -38. 8% for BYFC. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CARV leads at 56. 3%, 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.
06Which pays a better dividend — LSF or BYFC or SMPL or CARV?
In this comparison, BYFC (3.
5% yield) pays a dividend. LSF, SMPL, CARV do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
07Is LSF or BYFC or SMPL or CARV 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.
01), 3. 5% yield). Both have compounded well over 10 years (BYFC: -37. 8%, LSF: -92. 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.
08What are the main differences between LSF and BYFC and SMPL and CARV?
These companies operate in different sectors (LSF (Consumer Defensive) and BYFC (Financial Services) and SMPL (Consumer Defensive) and CARV (Financial Services)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: LSF is a small-cap high-growth stock; BYFC is a small-cap income-oriented stock; SMPL is a small-cap deep-value stock; CARV is a small-cap quality compounder stock. BYFC pays a dividend while LSF, SMPL, CARV 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.