Packaged Foods
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
NOMD vs WMT vs KR vs SYY vs COST
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Specialty Retail
Grocery Stores
Food Distribution
Discount Stores
NOMD vs WMT vs KR vs SYY vs COST — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Packaged Foods | Specialty Retail | Grocery Stores | Food Distribution | Discount Stores |
| Market Cap | $1.44B | $1.04T | $42.03B | $34.91B | $448.58B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $3.03B | $703.06B | $147.64B | $83.57B | $286.26B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $137M | $22.91B | $1.02B | $1.74B | $8.55B |
| Gross Margin | 27.1% | 24.9% | 22.3% | 18.5% | 12.9% |
| Operating Margin | 10.7% | 4.1% | 1.3% | 3.6% | 3.8% |
| Forward P/E | 6.9x | 44.7x | 12.7x | 15.9x | 49.5x |
| Total Debt | $2.29B | $67.09B | $24.68B | $14.49B | $8.17B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $325M | $10.73B | $3.33B | $1.07B | $14.16B |
NOMD vs WMT vs KR vs SYY vs COST — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nomad Foods Limited (NOMD) | 100 | 47.8 | -52.2% |
| Walmart Inc. (WMT) | 100 | 314.9 | +214.9% |
| The Kroger Co. (KR) | 100 | 203.6 | +103.6% |
| Sysco Corporation (SYY) | 100 | 132.1 | +32.1% |
| Costco Wholesale Co… (COST) | 100 | 328.1 | +228.1% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: NOMD vs WMT vs KR vs SYY vs COST
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
NOMD 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 0.07, yield 7.1%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.07, Low D/E 91.8%, current ratio 1.07x
- Beta 0.07, yield 7.1%, current ratio 1.07x
- Lower P/E (6.9x vs 49.5x)
WMT ranks third and is worth considering specifically for momentum.
- +32.7% vs NOMD's -43.5%
KR lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
SYY is the clearest fit if your priority is valuation efficiency.
- PEG 0.29 vs WMT's 4.06
COST is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure and long-term compounding is your priority.
- Rev growth 8.2%, EPS growth 10.0%, 3Y rev CAGR 6.6%
- 6.2% 10Y total return vs WMT's 499.5%
- 8.2% revenue growth vs NOMD's -2.2%
- 10.7% ROA vs KR's 2.0%, ROIC 34.5% vs 5.0%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 8.2% revenue growth vs NOMD's -2.2% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (6.9x vs 49.5x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 4.5% margin vs KR's 0.7% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.07 vs SYY's 0.47, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 7.1% yield, 2-year raise streak, vs SYY's 2.8% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +32.7% vs NOMD's -43.5% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 10.7% ROA vs KR's 2.0%, ROIC 34.5% vs 5.0% |
NOMD vs WMT vs KR vs SYY vs COST — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
NOMD vs WMT vs KR vs SYY vs COST — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
NOMD leads in 2 of 6 categories
COST leads 1 • WMT leads 1 • KR leads 0 • SYY leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
NOMD leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
WMT is the larger business by revenue, generating $703.1B annually — 231.8x NOMD's $3.0B. Profitability is closely matched — net margins range from 4.5% (NOMD) to 0.7% (KR). On growth, COST holds the edge at +9.2% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $3.0B | $703.1B | $147.6B | $83.6B | $286.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $435M | $42.8B | $5.5B | $4.0B | $13.5B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $137M | $22.9B | $1.0B | $1.7B | $8.5B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $252M | $15.3B | $3.5B | $2.0B | $9.1B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +27.1% | +24.9% | +22.3% | +18.5% | +12.9% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +10.7% | +4.1% | +1.3% | +3.6% | +3.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +4.5% | +3.3% | +0.7% | +2.1% | +3.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +8.3% | +2.2% | +2.4% | +2.4% | +3.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -2.6% | +5.8% | +1.2% | +4.7% | +9.2% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -123.1% | +35.1% | +50.0% | -13.4% | -2.1% |
Valuation Metrics
NOMD leads this category, winning 5 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 9.5x trailing earnings, NOMD trades at a 83% valuation discount to COST's 55.6x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), SYY offers better value at 0.36x vs WMT's 4.33x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1.4B | $1.04T | $42.0B | $34.9B | $448.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $3.7B | $1.09T | $63.4B | $48.3B | $442.6B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 9.46x | 47.69x | 43.12x | 19.54x | 55.58x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 6.86x | 44.71x | 12.68x | 15.88x | 49.51x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 4.33x | — | 0.36x | 3.68x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 7.34x | 24.85x | 10.91x | 11.58x | 34.55x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.40x | 1.46x | 0.28x | 0.43x | 1.63x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.52x | 10.45x | 7.33x | 19.23x | 15.44x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 4.85x | 24.97x | 12.55x | 19.60x | 57.24x |
Profitability & Efficiency
COST leads this category, winning 7 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
SYY delivers a 80.7% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $81 in annual profit, vs $5 for NOMD. COST carries lower financial leverage with a 0.28x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to SYY's 7.81x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), COST scores 7/9 vs NOMD's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +5.3% | +22.3% | +13.0% | +80.7% | +28.8% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +2.2% | +7.9% | +2.0% | +6.4% | +10.7% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +5.5% | +14.7% | +5.0% | +15.7% | +34.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +6.2% | +17.5% | +5.5% | +19.0% | +27.9% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.92x | 0.67x | 4.16x | 7.81x | 0.28x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $2.0B | $56.4B | $21.3B | $13.4B | -$6.0B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $325M | $10.7B | $3.3B | $1.1B | $14.2B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $2.3B | $67.1B | $24.7B | $14.5B | $8.2B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 2.52x | 11.85x | 2.59x | 4.35x | 77.52x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
WMT leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in WMT five years ago would be worth $28,695 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $4,026 for NOMD. Over the past 12 months, WMT leads with a +32.7% total return vs NOMD's -43.5%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors WMT at 37.6% vs NOMD's -15.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -15.4% | +15.7% | +6.0% | +1.9% | +18.8% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -43.5% | +32.7% | -6.4% | +6.4% | +1.0% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -40.3% | +160.5% | +42.7% | +4.0% | +108.7% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -59.7% | +186.9% | +90.7% | -3.9% | +172.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +40.1% | +499.5% | +108.7% | +82.2% | +625.0% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -15.8% | +37.6% | +12.6% | +1.3% | +27.8% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — WMT and KR each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
KR is the less volatile stock with a -0.64 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than SYY's 0.47 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. WMT currently trades 96.7% from its 52-week high vs NOMD's 51.3% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.07x | 0.12x | -0.64x | 0.47x | 0.13x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $19.71 | $134.69 | $76.58 | $91.69 | $1067.08 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $9.17 | $91.89 | $58.60 | $68.19 | $846.80 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +51.3% | +96.7% | +86.7% | +79.5% | +94.8% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 58.6 | 55.9 | 39.2 | 41.7 | 47.3 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.6M | 17.2M | 5.6M | 4.7M | 1.7M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — NOMD and WMT and SYY each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: NOMD as "Buy", WMT as "Buy", KR as "Buy", SYY as "Buy", COST as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 33.4% upside for NOMD (target: $14) vs 5.3% for WMT (target: $137). For income investors, NOMD offers the higher dividend yield at 7.06% vs COST's 0.48%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $13.50 | $137.04 | $74.75 | $90.44 | $1070.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 13 | 64 | 44 | 30 | 58 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +7.1% | +0.7% | +2.0% | +2.8% | +0.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 2 | 37 | 21 | 37 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.61 | $0.94 | $1.35 | $2.04 | $4.91 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +16.5% | +0.8% | +6.4% | +3.6% | +0.2% |
NOMD leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). COST leads in 1 (Profitability & Efficiency). 2 tied.
NOMD vs WMT vs KR vs SYY vs COST: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is NOMD or WMT or KR or SYY or COST a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST) is the stronger pick with 8.
2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -2. 2% for Nomad Foods Limited (NOMD). Nomad Foods Limited (NOMD) offers the better valuation at 9. 5x trailing P/E (6. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Nomad Foods Limited (NOMD) a "Buy" — based on 13 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 — NOMD or WMT or KR or SYY or COST?
On trailing P/E, Nomad Foods Limited (NOMD) is the cheapest at 9.
5x versus Costco Wholesale Corporation at 55. 6x. On forward P/E, Nomad Foods Limited is actually cheaper at 6. 9x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Sysco Corporation wins at 0. 29x versus Walmart Inc. 's 4. 06x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — NOMD or WMT or KR or SYY or COST?
Over the past 5 years, Walmart Inc.
(WMT) delivered a total return of +186. 9%, compared to -59. 7% for Nomad Foods Limited (NOMD). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: COST returned +625. 0% versus NOMD's +40. 1%. 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 — NOMD or WMT or KR or SYY or COST?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), The Kroger Co.
(KR) is the lower-risk stock at -0. 64β versus Sysco Corporation's 0. 47β — meaning SYY is approximately -173% more volatile than KR relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 28% versus 8% for Sysco Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — NOMD or WMT or KR or SYY or COST?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST) is pulling ahead at 8.
2% versus -2. 2% for Nomad Foods Limited (NOMD). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Walmart Inc. grew EPS 13. 3% year-over-year, compared to -58. 0% for The Kroger Co.. Over a 3-year CAGR, COST leads at 6. 6% 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 — NOMD or WMT or KR or SYY or COST?
Nomad Foods Limited (NOMD) is the more profitable company, earning 4.
5% net margin versus 0. 7% for The Kroger Co. — meaning it keeps 4. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: NOMD leads at 10. 7% versus 1. 3% for KR. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — NOMD leads at 27. 1%, 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 NOMD or WMT or KR or SYY or COST 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, Sysco Corporation (SYY) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 29x versus Walmart Inc. 's 4. 06x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Nomad Foods Limited (NOMD) trades at 6. 9x forward P/E versus 49. 5x for Costco Wholesale Corporation — 42. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for NOMD: 33. 4% to $13. 50.
08Which pays a better dividend — NOMD or WMT or KR or SYY or COST?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Nomad Foods Limited (NOMD) offers the highest yield at 7. 1%, versus 0. 5% for Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST).
09Is NOMD or WMT or KR or SYY or COST better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, The Kroger Co.
(KR) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0. 64), 2. 0% yield, +108. 7% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (KR: +108. 7%, SYY: +82. 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.
10What are the main differences between NOMD and WMT and KR and SYY and COST?
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: NOMD is a small-cap deep-value stock; WMT is a mega-cap quality compounder stock; KR is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; SYY is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; COST is a large-cap quality compounder stock. NOMD, WMT, KR, SYY pay a dividend while COST does 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.