Monster Beverage Corp
—- Market cap
- $42.21B
- Debt
- —
- Cash
- −$2.09B
Complete market value, debt and cash evidence is required for enterprise value.
Compare price, profitability, solvency, and SEC-reported financials side by side—before deciding which assumptions deserve a closer look.
Decision snapshot: MNST stock price vs CELH: inconclusive Relative valuation is incomplete for this pair. Review the available filing metrics before drawing a conclusion.
Quick read
Each company valued on the other's multiple, then compared with the market price.
Implied fair value · at CELH's multiple
Needs Annual EPS, CELH P/E.
Implied fair value · at MNST's multiple
Needs MNST P/E.
Metric by metric
Where each company leads, and how wide the gap is.
Growth lag
Reported gross margin
Operating income + D&A
Lower is better
Not comparable
Lower leverage
Statements
Annual statements in reported currencies, with calculations and source evidence.
Values retain reported currencies and share bases. Select a figure to inspect its period, calculation and filing inputs. Differences require compatible units and periods.
Explore enterprise value and market valuation multiples in the valuation sections.
Trendline
11 period-end years of reported revenue, earnings, and margins. Periods and currencies are shown with the data.
Price framework
USD market cap plus reported borrowing debt, less cash and equivalents. This EV proxy excludes investments, preferred stock and noncontrolling-interest adjustments.
Complete market value, debt and cash evidence is required for enterprise value.
Price framework
The same filing-backed model used on each company's valuation page, with company-specific inputs and calculated scenarios.
Monster Beverage Corp · implied price per share
Debt and bridge-cash inputs are required to translate enterprise value into equity value.
CELSIUS HOLDINGS, INC. · implied price per share
Debt and bridge-cash inputs are required to translate enterprise value into equity value.
Balance sheet health
Inspect reported liquidity and leverage alongside historical financial-health checks.
Financial strength on a 0–9 scale.
Bankruptcy-risk signal from balance sheet and earnings power.
Not enough data to score either balance sheet.
Comparable set
Where the pair sits against the wider comparable set.
Keep comparing
Open adjacent comparisons from the same industry to pressure-test the read across multiple pairs.
Complete market value, debt and cash evidence is required for enterprise value.
Cash excludes investments. EBITDA is an operating-income-plus-D&A proxy. Missing borrowing categories remain unavailable; select a value to inspect its inputs.
NATIONAL BEVERAGE CORP
MNST vs FIZZ
LLM-powered synthesis
An explanation of the financial evidence. Check its snapshot date against the figures above.
This explanation uses an earlier data snapshot or evidence version. Review its generation date and the current figures, or refresh after signing in.
If you believe MNST can sustain its 29.2% operating margin and 41.3% ROIC while converting its 10.7% revenue growth into earnings, then MNST remains reasonable to own despite the premium valuation because its profitability and balance sheet are clearly stronger than CELH's.
On a P/E basis, MNST is cheaper than CELH at 42.3x versus 116.8x, but MNST still screens as expensive on an absolute basis and is well above the low end of its valuation context. The model-implied price of $266.40 suggests 176.4% upside, yet that output is hard to reconcile with the current historical band of $86.74 to $106.02 and the DCF range of $17.68 to $23.93.
Supporting Metrics