Celsius vs National Beverage
Add, change or remove companies; up to four.
KIRA’s take AI analyst
I put Celsius and National Beverage side by side, using each one’s latest annual report. Here is what stands out:
- Celsius is the larger business, with $2.5B of revenue in fiscal 2025 against $1.2B for National Beverage, about 2.1 times as much.
- Celsius grew revenue faster (85.5%, against −1.7%).
- National Beverage kept more of each dollar of sales as operating profit (19.5% operating margin, against 5.6%).
- National Beverage earned a higher return on the capital invested in it (65.5%, against 25.1%).
- Investors pay more for each dollar of Celsius’s earnings: a P/E of 122.4x against 19.4x for National Beverage.
Who comes out ahead
Of the 11 measures where higher (or lower) is clearly better, how many each company leads.
Celsius
CELH
3/11
Revenue growth5-year growthGross margin
National Beverage
FIZZ
8/11
Operating marginNet marginFCF marginReturn on capitalReturn on equityPiotroski F-scoreNet debt / EBITDAShare count change
Side by side
Best in the row
| Latest fiscal year | CELH FY25 | FIZZ FY26 |
|---|---|---|
| Size | ||
| Market cap | $7.2B | $3.4B |
| Revenue | $2.5B | $1.2B |
| Free cash flow | $323M | $156M |
| Net income | $108M | $184M |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth | 85.5% | −1.7% |
| 5-year growth | 80.7% | 1.9% |
| Share count change | 7.4% | −0.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 50.4% | 37.0% |
| Operating margin | 5.6% | 19.5% |
| Net margin | 4.3% | 15.6% |
| FCF margin | 12.9% | 13.2% |
| Return on capital | 25.1% | 65.5% |
| Return on equity | 13.7% | 34.0% |
| Balance sheet | ||
| Net debt | $278M | −$350M |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.6x | −1.4x |
| Dividends and buybacks | $5.7M | $0.7M |
| Valuation & quality | ||
| P/E | 122.4x | 19.4x |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 7 |
Ten years
Revenue
Operating margin
Free cash flow
Return on capital
Each company's latest fiscal year; fiscal years end in different months. The best value in each row is highlighted where higher (or lower) is clearly better. Not investment advice.