Beverages - Alcoholic
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
SBEV vs FIZZ vs CELH vs SAM vs MNST
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic
Beverages - Alcoholic
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic
SBEV vs FIZZ vs CELH vs SAM vs MNST — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Beverages - Alcoholic | Beverages - Non-Alcoholic | Beverages - Non-Alcoholic | Beverages - Alcoholic | Beverages - Non-Alcoholic |
| Market Cap | $387K | $3.29B | $8.80B | $2.18B | $74.29B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $1M | $1.20B | $2.97B | $2.09B | $8.29B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-31M | $187M | $149M | $-61M | $1.91B |
| Gross Margin | -168.7% | 37.2% | 49.6% | 45.2% | 55.8% |
| Operating Margin | -19.2% | 19.7% | 10.4% | -3.8% | 29.2% |
| Forward P/E | — | 17.6x | 21.3x | 20.6x | 33.7x |
| Total Debt | $13M | $72M | $670M | $38M | $0.00 |
| Cash & Equiv. | $15K | $194M | $399M | $223M | $2.09B |
SBEV vs FIZZ vs CELH vs SAM vs MNST — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Splash Beverage Gro… (SBEV) | 100 | 0.3 | -99.7% |
| National Beverage C… (FIZZ) | 100 | 123.4 | +23.4% |
| Celsius Holdings, I… (CELH) | 100 | 1108.7 | +1008.7% |
| The Boston Beer Com… (SAM) | 100 | 35.9 | -64.1% |
| Monster Beverage Co… (MNST) | 100 | 211.3 | +111.3% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: SBEV vs FIZZ vs CELH vs SAM vs MNST
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
SBEV lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
FIZZ carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 4 yrs, beta 0.29, yield 9.2%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.29, Low D/E 16.2%, current ratio 2.90x
- Beta 0.29, yield 9.2%, current ratio 2.90x
- Lower P/E (17.6x vs 33.7x), PEG 2.36 vs 4.21
CELH ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 85.5%, EPS growth -44.4%, 3Y rev CAGR 56.7%
- 41.3% 10Y total return vs MNST's 206.3%
- PEG 0.46 vs MNST's 4.21
- 85.5% revenue growth vs SBEV's -78.0%
Among these 5 stocks, SAM doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
MNST is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if quality and stability is your priority.
- 23.0% margin vs SBEV's -30.3%
- Beta 0.26 vs SBEV's 2.87
- +25.4% vs SBEV's -96.5%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 85.5% revenue growth vs SBEV's -78.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (17.6x vs 33.7x), PEG 2.36 vs 4.21 | |
| Quality / Margins | 23.0% margin vs SBEV's -30.3% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.26 vs SBEV's 2.87 | |
| Dividends | 9.2% yield, 4-year raise streak, vs CELH's 0.5%, (3 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +25.4% vs SBEV's -96.5% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 27.1% ROA vs SBEV's -138.2% |
SBEV vs FIZZ vs CELH vs SAM vs MNST — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
SBEV vs FIZZ vs CELH vs SAM vs MNST — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
MNST leads in 3 of 6 categories
SAM leads 1 • FIZZ leads 1 • SBEV leads 0 • CELH leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MNST leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MNST is the larger business by revenue, generating $8.3B annually — 8098.7x SBEV's $1M. MNST is the more profitable business, keeping 23.0% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to SBEV's -30.3%. On growth, CELH holds the edge at +137.7% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $1M | $1.2B | $3.0B | $2.1B | $8.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$19M | $258M | $336M | $14M | $2.5B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$31M | $187M | $149M | -$61M | $1.9B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$2M | $157M | $293M | $191M | $2.0B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | -168.7% | +37.2% | +49.6% | +45.2% | +55.8% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -19.2% | +19.7% | +10.4% | -3.8% | +29.2% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -30.3% | +15.6% | +5.0% | -2.9% | +23.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -173.5% | +13.1% | +9.9% | +9.1% | +23.7% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -100.0% | -1.0% | +137.7% | +1.7% | +17.6% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -4.0% | 0.0% | +120.0% | -7.4% | +64.3% |
Valuation Metrics
SAM leads this category, winning 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 17.7x trailing earnings, FIZZ trades at a 87% valuation discount to CELH's 137.0x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), FIZZ offers better value at 2.37x vs MNST's 4.89x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $387,068 | $3.3B | $8.8B | $2.2B | $74.3B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $13M | $3.2B | $9.1B | $2.0B | $72.2B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.01x | 17.67x | 137.04x | 20.50x | 39.16x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 17.56x | 21.32x | 20.56x | 33.72x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 2.37x | 2.93x | — | 4.89x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 12.37x | 18.22x | 8.45x | 28.50x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.09x | 2.74x | 3.50x | 1.04x | 8.96x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | — | 7.42x | 2.76x | 2.54x | 9.06x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 19.32x | 27.22x | 10.09x | 37.79x |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — FIZZ and MNST each lead in 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
FIZZ delivers a 39.3% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $39 in annual profit, vs $-5 for SBEV. SAM carries lower financial leverage with a 0.04x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to CELH's 0.23x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), SAM scores 7/9 vs SBEV's 2/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -4.6% | +39.3% | +6.4% | -7.3% | +25.7% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -138.2% | +27.1% | +3.1% | -5.0% | +20.8% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | — | +57.9% | +19.7% | +15.5% | +33.1% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | — | +40.4% | +17.2% | +14.8% | +31.9% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 0.16x | 0.23x | 0.04x | — |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $13M | -$122M | $271M | -$186M | -$2.1B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $15,346 | $194M | $399M | $223M | $2.1B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $13M | $72M | $670M | $38M | $0 |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -3.14x | — | 2.92x | — | 372.36x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
MNST leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in CELH five years ago would be worth $20,941 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $11 for SBEV. Over the past 12 months, MNST leads with a +25.4% total return vs SBEV's -96.5%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors MNST at 8.8% vs SBEV's -83.4% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -68.7% | +11.1% | -28.3% | +1.5% | -0.2% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -96.5% | -19.4% | -4.3% | -15.9% | +25.4% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.5% | -25.7% | -3.8% | -35.0% | +28.7% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.9% | -13.2% | +109.4% | -81.8% | +66.5% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.6% | +82.6% | +4129.6% | +32.0% | +206.3% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -83.4% | -9.4% | -1.3% | -13.4% | +8.8% |
Risk & Volatility
MNST leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
MNST is the less volatile stock with a 0.26 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than SBEV's 2.87 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. MNST currently trades 86.9% from its 52-week high vs SBEV's 3.4% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 2.87x | 0.29x | 1.29x | 0.29x | 0.26x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $6.79 | $47.89 | $66.74 | $264.46 | $87.38 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.22 | $31.21 | $31.80 | $185.34 | $58.09 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +3.4% | +73.4% | +51.3% | +76.7% | +86.9% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 37.6 | 56.8 | 39.1 | 28.7 | 54.5 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 2.5M | 220K | 7.3M | 199K | 5.2M |
Analyst Outlook
FIZZ leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: FIZZ as "Sell", CELH as "Buy", SAM as "Hold", MNST as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 72.2% upside for CELH (target: $59) vs -3.3% for FIZZ (target: $34). For income investors, FIZZ offers the higher dividend yield at 9.23% vs CELH's 0.46%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Sell | Buy | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $34.00 | $59.00 | $246.86 | $85.38 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 8 | 22 | 31 | 43 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +9.2% | +0.5% | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 4 | 1 | 0 | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $3.25 | $0.16 | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | +0.5% | +9.4% | +0.1% |
MNST leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Total Returns). SAM leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 1 tied.
SBEV vs FIZZ vs CELH vs SAM vs MNST: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is SBEV or FIZZ or CELH or SAM 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 -78. 0% for Splash Beverage Group, Inc. (SBEV). National Beverage Corp. (FIZZ) offers the better valuation at 17. 7x trailing P/E (17. 6x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Celsius Holdings, Inc. (CELH) a "Buy" — based on 22 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 — SBEV or FIZZ or CELH or SAM or MNST?
On trailing P/E, National Beverage Corp.
(FIZZ) is the cheapest at 17. 7x versus Celsius Holdings, Inc. at 137. 0x. On forward P/E, National Beverage Corp. is actually cheaper at 17. 6x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Celsius Holdings, Inc. wins at 0. 46x versus Monster Beverage Corporation's 4. 21x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — SBEV or FIZZ or CELH or SAM or MNST?
Over the past 5 years, Celsius Holdings, Inc.
(CELH) delivered a total return of +109. 4%, compared to -99. 9% for Splash Beverage Group, Inc. (SBEV). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CELH returned +41. 3% versus SBEV's -99. 6%. 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 — SBEV or FIZZ or CELH or SAM or MNST?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Monster Beverage Corporation (MNST) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
26β versus Splash Beverage Group, Inc. 's 2. 87β — meaning SBEV is approximately 1012% more volatile than MNST relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, The Boston Beer Company, Inc. (SAM) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 4% versus 23% for Celsius Holdings, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — SBEV or FIZZ or CELH or SAM or MNST?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Celsius Holdings, Inc.
(CELH) is pulling ahead at 85. 5% versus -78. 0% for Splash Beverage Group, Inc. (SBEV). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: The Boston Beer Company, Inc. grew EPS 95. 5% year-over-year, compared to -35. 1% for Splash Beverage Group, 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 — SBEV or FIZZ or CELH or SAM or MNST?
Monster Beverage Corporation (MNST) is the more profitable company, earning 23.
0% net margin versus -571. 7% for Splash Beverage Group, Inc. — meaning it keeps 23. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: MNST leads at 29. 2% versus -386. 2% for SBEV. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — MNST leads at 55. 8%, 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 SBEV or FIZZ or CELH or SAM 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. 46x versus Monster Beverage Corporation's 4. 21x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, National Beverage Corp. (FIZZ) trades at 17. 6x forward P/E versus 33. 7x for Monster Beverage Corporation — 16. 2x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for CELH: 72. 2% to $59. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — SBEV or FIZZ or CELH or SAM or MNST?
In this comparison, FIZZ (9.
2% yield), CELH (0. 5% yield) pay a dividend. SBEV, SAM, MNST do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is SBEV or FIZZ or CELH or SAM or MNST better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, National Beverage Corp.
(FIZZ) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 29), 9. 2% yield). Splash Beverage Group, Inc. (SBEV) carries a higher beta of 2. 87 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (FIZZ: +82. 6%, SBEV: -99. 6%), 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 SBEV and FIZZ and CELH and SAM 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: SBEV is a small-cap quality compounder stock; FIZZ is a small-cap deep-value stock; CELH is a small-cap high-growth stock; SAM is a small-cap quality compounder stock; MNST is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. FIZZ pays a dividend while SBEV, CELH, SAM, 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.