Food Confectioners
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
TR vs HSY vs MDLZ vs SFM vs RMCF
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Food Confectioners
Food Confectioners
Grocery Stores
Food Confectioners
TR vs HSY vs MDLZ vs SFM vs RMCF — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Food Confectioners | Food Confectioners | Food Confectioners | Grocery Stores | Food Confectioners |
| Market Cap | $3.21B | $37.89B | $78.70B | $7.62B | $20M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $733M | $11.99B | $39.30B | $8.90B | $30M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $100M | $1.09B | $2.61B | $507M | $-4M |
| Gross Margin | 35.5% | 34.8% | 28.8% | 37.0% | 21.0% |
| Operating Margin | 14.0% | 14.1% | 9.4% | 7.6% | -10.9% |
| Forward P/E | 22.7x | 22.2x | 20.1x | 14.5x | — |
| Total Debt | $14M | $5.40B | $22.40B | $1.94B | $7M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $128M | $926M | $2.13B | $257M | $720K |
TR vs HSY vs MDLZ vs SFM vs RMCF — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tootsie Roll Indust… (TR) | 100 | 147.6 | +47.6% |
| The Hershey Company (HSY) | 100 | 137.8 | +37.8% |
| Mondelez Internatio… (MDLZ) | 100 | 117.6 | +17.6% |
| Sprouts Farmers Mar… (SFM) | 100 | 322.3 | +222.3% |
| Rocky Mountain Choc… (RMCF) | 100 | 59.2 | -40.8% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: TR vs HSY vs MDLZ vs SFM vs RMCF
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
TR is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if quality is your priority.
- 13.7% margin vs RMCF's -13.6%
HSY ranks third and is worth considering specifically for dividends.
- 2.9% yield, 34-year raise streak, vs MDLZ's 3.1%, (2 stocks pay no dividend)
MDLZ is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 12 yrs, beta 0.06, yield 3.1%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.06, Low D/E 86.5%, current ratio 0.59x
- Beta 0.06, yield 3.1%, current ratio 0.59x
- Beta 0.06 vs RMCF's 1.10, lower leverage
SFM carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 14.1%, EPS growth 41.6%, 3Y rev CAGR 11.2%
- 203.9% 10Y total return vs HSY's 142.6%
- PEG 0.86 vs TR's 1.95
- 14.1% revenue growth vs TR's 1.3%
RMCF is the clearest fit if your priority is momentum.
- +103.2% vs SFM's -51.7%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 14.1% revenue growth vs TR's 1.3% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 13.7% margin vs RMCF's -13.6% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.06 vs RMCF's 1.10, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 2.9% yield, 34-year raise streak, vs MDLZ's 3.1%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +103.2% vs SFM's -51.7% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 12.5% ROA vs RMCF's -19.5%, ROIC 17.8% vs -35.7% |
TR vs HSY vs MDLZ vs SFM vs RMCF — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
TR vs HSY vs MDLZ vs SFM vs RMCF — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
SFM leads in 2 of 6 categories
HSY leads 1 • TR leads 1 • MDLZ leads 0 • RMCF leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
HSY leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MDLZ is the larger business by revenue, generating $39.3B annually — 1326.1x RMCF's $30M. TR is the more profitable business, keeping 13.7% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to RMCF's -13.6%. On growth, HSY holds the edge at +10.6% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $733M | $12.0B | $39.3B | $8.9B | $30M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $122M | $2.0B | $4.9B | $996M | -$2M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $100M | $1.1B | $2.6B | $507M | -$4M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $96M | $2.2B | $2.6B | $361M | -$2M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +35.5% | +34.8% | +28.8% | +37.0% | +21.0% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +14.0% | +14.1% | +9.4% | +7.6% | -10.9% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +13.7% | +9.1% | +6.6% | +5.7% | -13.6% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +13.2% | +18.1% | +6.6% | +4.1% | -7.0% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +1.5% | +10.6% | +8.2% | +4.1% | -4.4% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +21.9% | +93.6% | +38.7% | -5.5% | +81.8% |
Valuation Metrics
SFM leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 15.3x trailing earnings, SFM trades at a 65% valuation discount to HSY's 43.1x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), SFM offers better value at 0.90x vs TR's 2.68x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $3.2B | $37.9B | $78.7B | $7.6B | $20M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $3.1B | $42.4B | $99.0B | $9.3B | $26M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 31.20x | 43.07x | 32.44x | 15.25x | -2.95x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 22.73x | 22.23x | 20.06x | 14.52x | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 2.68x | — | — | 0.90x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 25.44x | 29.24x | 19.88x | 9.35x | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 4.39x | 3.24x | 2.04x | 0.86x | 0.67x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 3.31x | 8.19x | 3.07x | 5.70x | 2.58x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 33.35x | 21.66x | 24.33x | 16.29x | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — TR and SFM each lead in 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
SFM delivers a 36.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $36 in annual profit, vs $-67 for RMCF. TR carries lower financial leverage with a 0.01x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to SFM's 1.39x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), TR scores 7/9 vs RMCF's 2/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +11.0% | +23.7% | +10.0% | +36.1% | -67.2% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +8.3% | +8.0% | +3.7% | +12.5% | -19.5% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +9.8% | +11.5% | +6.0% | +17.8% | -35.7% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +9.3% | +14.4% | +7.3% | +22.1% | -44.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 2 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.01x | 1.17x | 0.87x | 1.39x | 1.03x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$114M | $4.5B | $20.3B | $1.7B | $6M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $128M | $926M | $2.1B | $257M | $720,000 |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $14M | $5.4B | $22.4B | $1.9B | $7M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 276.65x | 7.99x | 10.01x | 254.65x | -3.92x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
SFM leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in SFM five years ago would be worth $31,381 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $4,233 for RMCF. Over the past 12 months, RMCF leads with a +103.2% total return vs SFM's -51.7%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors SFM at 31.2% vs RMCF's -22.2% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +21.0% | +3.3% | +15.2% | +0.4% | +31.6% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +38.5% | +14.1% | -5.8% | -51.7% | +103.2% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +25.9% | -26.2% | -14.5% | +125.7% | -53.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +66.5% | +24.8% | +12.6% | +213.8% | -57.7% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +76.8% | +142.6% | +68.4% | +203.9% | -56.4% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +8.0% | -9.6% | -5.1% | +31.2% | -22.2% |
Risk & Volatility
TR leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
TR is the less volatile stock with a -0.03 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than RMCF's 1.10 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. TR currently trades 94.9% from its 52-week high vs SFM's 44.5% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | -0.03x | -0.03x | 0.06x | 0.17x | 1.10x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $45.06 | $239.48 | $71.15 | $182.00 | $2.99 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $29.78 | $150.04 | $51.20 | $64.75 | $1.14 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +94.9% | +78.1% | +86.2% | +44.5% | +84.9% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 46.7 | 37.3 | 68.7 | 54.9 | 65.6 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 126K | 1.7M | 9.0M | 2.2M | 32K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — HSY and MDLZ each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: HSY as "Hold", MDLZ as "Buy", SFM as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 21.1% upside for HSY (target: $226) vs 9.3% for MDLZ (target: $67). For income investors, MDLZ offers the higher dividend yield at 3.13% vs TR's 0.84%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Hold | Buy | Buy | — |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $226.29 | $67.00 | $91.00 | — |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 35 | 41 | 43 | — |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +0.8% | +2.9% | +3.1% | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 1 | 34 | 12 | 1 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.36 | $5.34 | $1.92 | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.2% | 0.0% | +3.0% | +6.2% | 0.0% |
SFM leads in 2 of 6 categories (Valuation Metrics, Total Returns). HSY leads in 1 (Income & Cash Flow). 2 tied.
TR vs HSY vs MDLZ vs SFM vs RMCF: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is TR or HSY or MDLZ or SFM or RMCF a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc.
(SFM) is the stronger pick with 14. 1% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 1. 3% for Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc. (TR). Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. (SFM) offers the better valuation at 15. 3x trailing P/E (14. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Mondelez International, Inc. (MDLZ) a "Buy" — based on 41 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 — TR or HSY or MDLZ or SFM or RMCF?
On trailing P/E, Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc.
(SFM) is the cheapest at 15. 3x versus The Hershey Company at 43. 1x. On forward P/E, Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. is actually cheaper at 14. 5x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. wins at 0. 86x versus Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc. 's 1. 95x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — TR or HSY or MDLZ or SFM or RMCF?
Over the past 5 years, Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc.
(SFM) delivered a total return of +213. 8%, compared to -57. 7% for Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory, Inc. (RMCF). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: SFM returned +203. 9% versus RMCF's -56. 4%. 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 — TR or HSY or MDLZ or SFM or RMCF?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc.
(TR) is the lower-risk stock at -0. 03β versus Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory, Inc. 's 1. 10β — meaning RMCF is approximately -4449% more volatile than TR relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc. (TR) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 1% versus 139% for Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — TR or HSY or MDLZ or SFM or RMCF?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc.
(SFM) is pulling ahead at 14. 1% versus 1. 3% for Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc. (TR). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. grew EPS 41. 6% year-over-year, compared to -60. 3% for The Hershey Company. Over a 3-year CAGR, SFM leads at 11. 2% 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 — TR or HSY or MDLZ or SFM or RMCF?
Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc.
(TR) is the more profitable company, earning 13. 7% net margin versus -20. 7% for Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory, Inc. — meaning it keeps 13. 7% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: TR leads at 14. 0% versus -20. 1% for RMCF. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — SFM leads at 37. 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 TR or HSY or MDLZ or SFM or RMCF 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, Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. (SFM) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 86x versus Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc. 's 1. 95x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. (SFM) trades at 14. 5x forward P/E versus 22. 7x for Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc. — 8. 2x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for HSY: 21. 1% to $226. 29.
08Which pays a better dividend — TR or HSY or MDLZ or SFM or RMCF?
In this comparison, MDLZ (3.
1% yield), HSY (2. 9% yield), TR (0. 8% yield) pay a dividend. SFM, RMCF do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is TR or HSY or MDLZ or SFM or RMCF better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, The Hershey Company (HSY) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0.
03), 2. 9% yield, +142. 6% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (HSY: +142. 6%, RMCF: -56. 4%), 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 TR and HSY and MDLZ and SFM and RMCF?
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: TR is a small-cap quality compounder stock; HSY is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; MDLZ is a mid-cap income-oriented stock; SFM is a small-cap deep-value stock; RMCF is a small-cap quality compounder stock. TR, HSY, MDLZ pay a dividend while SFM, RMCF 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.