TLRY vs BUD

For growth investors, Tilray Brands, Inc.

(TLRY) is the stronger pick with 4. 8% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 0. 7% for Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV (BUD). Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV (BUD) offers the better valuation at 27. 9x trailing P/E (18. 7x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV (BUD) a "Buy" — based on 45 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.

Over the past 5 years, Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV (BUD) delivered a total return of +13.

0%, compared to -63. 0% for Tilray Brands, Inc. (TLRY). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: BUD returned -23. 9% versus TLRY's -75. 2%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV (BUD) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

33β versus Tilray Brands, Inc. 's 2. 04β — meaning TLRY is approximately 519% more volatile than BUD relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Tilray Brands, Inc. (TLRY) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 22% versus 81% for Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Tilray Brands, Inc.

(TLRY) is pulling ahead at 4. 8% versus 0. 7% for Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV (BUD). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV grew EPS 10. 0% year-over-year, compared to -651. 7% for Tilray Brands, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, TLRY leads at 12. 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.

Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV (BUD) is the more profitable company, earning 9.

8% net margin versus -266. 3% for Tilray Brands, Inc. — meaning it keeps 9. 8% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: BUD leads at 25. 9% versus -277. 9% for TLRY. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — BUD leads at 55. 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.

Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for TLRY: 79.

9% to $10. 00.

In this comparison, BUD (1.

6% yield) pays a dividend. TLRY does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV (BUD) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.

33), 1. 6% yield). Tilray Brands, Inc. (TLRY) carries a higher beta of 2. 04 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (BUD: -23. 9%, TLRY: -75. 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.

These companies operate in different sectors (TLRY (Healthcare) and BUD (Consumer Defensive)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.

BUD pays a dividend while TLRY 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.