vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Conagra Brands (CAG) and Mondelez International (MDLZ), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Mondelez International is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($10.5B vs $3.0B, roughly 3.5× Conagra Brands). Mondelez International runs the higher net margin — -22.3% vs 6.3%, a 28.6% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Mondelez International posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (9.3% vs -6.8%). Mondelez International produced more free cash flow last quarter ($2.0B vs $138.8M). Over the past eight quarters, Mondelez International's revenue compounded faster (6.3% CAGR vs -0.9%).
Conagra Brands, Inc. is an American consumer packaged goods holding company that makes and sells products under various brand names that are available in supermarkets, restaurants, and food service establishments. Based on its 2021 revenue, the company ranked 331st on the 2022 Fortune 500. Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, Conagra was founded in Nebraska in 1919 and was originally called Nebraska Consolidated Mills.
Mondelēz International, Inc. is an American multinational confectionery, food, holding, beverage and snack food company based in Chicago. Mondelez has an annual revenue of about $26.5 billion and operates in approximately 160 countries. It ranked No. 108 in the 2021 Fortune 500 list of the largest United States corporations by total revenue.
CAG vs MDLZ — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 2026 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $3.0B | $10.5B |
| Net Profit | $-663.6M | $665.0M |
| Gross Margin | 23.4% | 28.2% |
| Operating Margin | -20.1% | 9.1% |
| Net Margin | -22.3% | 6.3% |
| Revenue YoY | -6.8% | 9.3% |
| Net Profit YoY | -333.3% | -61.9% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-1.39 | $0.52 |
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 | $3.0B | $10.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.6B | $9.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.8B | $9.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.8B | $9.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.2B | $9.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.8B | $9.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.9B | $8.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.0B | $9.3B |
| Q4 25 | $-663.6M | $665.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $164.5M | $743.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $256.0M | $641.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $145.1M | $402.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $284.5M | $1.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | $466.8M | $853.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-567.3M | $601.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $308.6M | $1.4B |
| Q4 25 | 23.4% | 28.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 24.3% | 26.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 25.4% | 32.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 25.0% | 26.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 26.5% | 38.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 26.5% | 32.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 27.7% | 33.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 28.3% | 51.1% |
| Q4 25 | -20.1% | 9.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 13.2% | 7.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.1% | 13.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 13.9% | 7.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 14.8% | 16.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 17.7% | 12.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | -16.3% | 10.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 19.1% | 29.4% |
| Q4 25 | -22.3% | 6.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 6.2% | 7.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.2% | 7.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.1% | 4.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 8.9% | 18.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 16.7% | 9.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | -19.5% | 7.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 10.2% | 15.2% |
| Q4 25 | $-1.39 | $0.52 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.34 | $0.57 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.54 | $0.49 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.30 | $0.31 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.59 | $1.30 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.97 | $0.63 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-1.19 | $0.45 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.64 | $1.04 |
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 | $46.6M | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $7.2B | $17.2B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $8.1B | $25.8B |
| Total Assets | $19.5B | $71.5B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.89× | 0.67× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $46.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $698.1M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $68.0M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $49.4M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $37.4M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $128.7M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $77.7M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $78.5M | — |
| Q4 25 | $7.2B | $17.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $8.2B | $17.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.3B | $18.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.3B | $15.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.3B | $15.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | $7.5B | $16.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.5B | $16.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | $8.5B | $16.8B |
| Q4 25 | $8.1B | $25.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | $8.9B | $26.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $8.9B | $26.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $8.8B | $25.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | $8.8B | $26.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.7B | $27.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $8.4B | $27.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $9.2B | $28.5B |
| Q4 25 | $19.5B | $71.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $21.2B | $71.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $20.9B | $71.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $20.7B | $68.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $21.0B | $68.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $21.2B | $72.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $20.9B | $73.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | $21.9B | $77.6B |
| Q4 25 | 0.89× | 0.67× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.92× | 0.65× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.81× | 0.69× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.83× | 0.61× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.83× | 0.58× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.86× | 0.59× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.89× | 0.58× | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.93× | 0.59× |
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 | $210.6M | $2.4B |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $138.8M | $2.0B |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 4.7% | 19.0% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 2.4% | 3.8% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | 3.60× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $876.4M | $3.2B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $210.6M | $2.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $120.6M | $717.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $345.7M | $308.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $592.0M | $1.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $485.6M | $1.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $268.6M | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $484.3M | $822.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $676.7M | $1.3B |
| Q4 25 | $138.8M | $2.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $-26.2M | $418.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $260.6M | $3.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $503.2M | $815.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $403.2M | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $135.6M | $989.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $405.8M | $455.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $581.1M | $1.0B |
| Q4 25 | 4.7% | 19.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | -1.0% | 4.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.4% | 0.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 17.7% | 8.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 12.6% | 11.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 4.9% | 10.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 14.0% | 5.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 19.2% | 11.0% |
| Q4 25 | 2.4% | 3.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 5.6% | 3.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.1% | 3.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.1% | 3.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.6% | 4.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 4.8% | 3.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.7% | 4.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.2% | 3.2% |
| Q4 25 | — | 3.60× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.73× | 0.97× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.35× | 0.48× | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.08× | 2.72× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.71× | 0.84× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.58× | 1.53× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 1.37× | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.19× | 0.94× |
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
CAG
| Frozen | $1.1B | 35% |
| Other Shelf Stable | $625.2M | 21% |
| Snacks | $583.9M | 20% |
| Foodservice | $288.4M | 10% |
| Other | $230.4M | 8% |
| Refrigerated | $196.0M | 7% |
MDLZ
Segment breakdown not available.
