vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Beam Global (BEEM) and Performance Food Group Co (PFGC), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Performance Food Group Co is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($16.4B vs $9.0M, roughly 1817.3× Beam Global). Performance Food Group Co runs the higher net margin — -25.8% vs 0.4%, a 26.1% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Beam Global posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (6.7% vs 5.2%). Performance Food Group Co produced more free cash flow last quarter ($487.8M vs $-3.8M). Over the past eight quarters, Performance Food Group Co's revenue compounded faster (8.9% CAGR vs -21.2%).
Suntory Global Spirits Inc., formerly known as Beam Suntory, Inc., and before that as Beam, Inc., is an American beverage company that is a subsidiary of Suntory Holdings, a Japanese multinational beverage conglomerate. The company produces alcoholic beverages.
PepsiCo, Inc. is an American multinational food and beverage corporation headquartered in Harrison, New York, in the hamlet of Purchase. PepsiCo's business encompasses all aspects of the food and beverage market. It oversees the manufacturing, distribution, and marketing of its products. PepsiCo was formed in 1965 with the merger of the Pepsi-Cola Company and Frito-Lay, Inc., PepsiCo has since expanded from its namesake product Pepsi to an immensely diversified range of food and beverage bran...
BEEM vs PFGC — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q2 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $9.0M | $16.4B |
| Net Profit | $-2.3M | $61.7M |
| Gross Margin | 17.8% | 12.0% |
| Operating Margin | -29.3% | 1.2% |
| Net Margin | -25.8% | 0.4% |
| Revenue YoY | 6.7% | 5.2% |
| Net Profit YoY | 49.6% | 45.5% |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $0.39 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align — see 8-quarter trend below.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history — bar widths are scaled to the larger of the two companies so you can eyeball the size gap and growth trajectory without doing math. Quarters aligned by calendar period (report date) so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q4 25 | $9.0M | $16.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.8M | $17.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.1M | $16.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $6.3M | $15.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $8.5M | $15.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.5M | $15.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $14.8M | $15.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $14.6M | $13.9B |
| Q4 25 | $-2.3M | $61.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-4.9M | $93.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-4.3M | $131.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-15.5M | $58.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-4.6M | $42.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.3M | $108.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-4.9M | $166.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-3.0M | $70.4M |
| Q4 25 | 17.8% | 12.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | -0.5% | 11.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 20.3% | 11.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 7.9% | 11.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 26.3% | 11.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 10.7% | 11.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 15.9% | 11.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 10.2% | 11.3% |
| Q4 25 | -29.3% | 1.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | -84.2% | 1.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | -63.1% | 1.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | -245.8% | 1.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | -60.1% | 1.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.2% | 1.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | -32.3% | 1.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | -20.9% | 1.1% |
| Q4 25 | -25.8% | 0.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | -84.1% | 0.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | -60.5% | 0.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | -245.5% | 0.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | -54.5% | 0.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.3% | 0.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | -33.2% | 1.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | -20.9% | 0.5% |
| Q4 25 | — | $0.39 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.28 | $0.60 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.28 | $0.85 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-1.04 | $0.37 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.31 | $0.27 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.09 | $0.69 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.34 | $1.07 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.21 | $0.45 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest filing — the kind of financial-strength check premium terminals charge for.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $969.0K | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $5.3B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $24.8M | $4.6B |
| Total Assets | $42.7M | $18.2B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 1.13× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $969.0K | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.3M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.6M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $5.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $5.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $5.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $5.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $5.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $3.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $3.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $3.2B |
| Q4 25 | $24.8M | $4.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $26.5M | $4.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $26.9M | $4.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $26.7M | $4.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $41.3M | $4.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $46.4M | $4.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $43.4M | $4.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | $46.9M | $4.0B |
| Q4 25 | $42.7M | $18.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $44.6M | $18.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $46.7M | $17.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $46.8M | $17.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $61.5M | $17.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $67.3M | $14.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $71.9M | $13.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $75.7M | $12.9B |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.13× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.23× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 1.20× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.25× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.34× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.93× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.78× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.81× |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Net income can be massaged; cash flow is harder to fake.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $-3.8M | $601.2M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-3.8M | $487.8M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -42.3% | 3.0% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 0.6% | 0.7% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | 9.74× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-11.8M | $792.7M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $-3.8M | $601.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-4.6M | $-145.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-318.0K | $383.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-1.8M | $448.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $859.0K | $325.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-3.0M | $53.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.9M | $206.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-3.0M | $402.7M |
| Q4 25 | $-3.8M | $487.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-5.1M | $-224.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-1.1M | $209.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-1.8M | $319.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $462.0K | $218.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-3.1M | $-43.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.8M | $55.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-3.1M | $305.4M |
| Q4 25 | -42.3% | 3.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | -87.9% | -1.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | -15.2% | 1.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | -28.7% | 2.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.4% | 1.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | -27.4% | -0.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 18.9% | 0.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | -21.5% | 2.2% |
| Q4 25 | 0.6% | 0.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 7.8% | 0.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 10.7% | 1.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.9% | 0.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.7% | 0.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.7% | 0.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.9% | 1.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.7% | 0.7% |
| Q4 25 | — | 9.74× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -1.55× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 2.91× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 7.69× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 7.68× | ||
| Q3 24 | -2.28× | 0.50× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 1.24× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 5.72× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Sankey diagram of revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company. Charts shown full-width and stacked so both segment hierarchies are readable side-by-side on desktop and mobile.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
BEEM
Segment breakdown not available.
PFGC
| Foodservice | $8.8B | 54% |
| Convenience | $6.3B | 38% |
| Specialty | $1.3B | 8% |
