vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of NATIONAL BEVERAGE CORP (FIZZ) and Zevia PBC (ZVIA), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
NATIONAL BEVERAGE CORP is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($288.3M vs $37.9M, roughly 7.6× Zevia PBC). NATIONAL BEVERAGE CORP runs the higher net margin — 16.1% vs -3.4%, a 19.5% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, NATIONAL BEVERAGE CORP posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (-1.0% vs -4.0%). Over the past eight quarters, NATIONAL BEVERAGE CORP's revenue compounded faster (3.3% CAGR vs -1.2%).
National Beverage Corp. is an American beverage developer, manufacturer, and distributor based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, focused on flavored soft drinks, with its most noted brands being La Croix, Shasta, and Faygo.
Zevia is a Los Angeles based company that produces soft drinks, organic tea, energy drinks, and mixers sweetened with stevia. All Zevia products are zero-calorie, sugar-free, gluten free, vegan, certified kosher, and certified by The Non-GMO Project. In June 2021, Zevia filed to go public with an IPO.
FIZZ vs ZVIA — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 2026 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $288.3M | $37.9M |
| Net Profit | $46.4M | $-1.3M |
| Gross Margin | 37.9% | 47.7% |
| Operating Margin | 20.1% | -4.0% |
| Net Margin | 16.1% | -3.4% |
| Revenue YoY | -1.0% | -4.0% |
| Net Profit YoY | 1.6% | 80.9% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.49 | $-0.02 |
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 | $288.3M | $37.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $330.5M | $40.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $313.6M | $44.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $267.1M | $38.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $291.2M | $39.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $329.5M | $36.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $297.3M | $40.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $270.1M | $38.8M |
| Q4 25 | $46.4M | $-1.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $55.8M | $-2.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $44.8M | $-651.0K | ||
| Q1 25 | $39.6M | $-6.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $45.6M | $-6.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $56.8M | $-2.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $43.7M | $-7.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $39.6M | $-7.2M |
| Q4 25 | 37.9% | 47.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 38.0% | 45.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 36.1% | 48.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 37.1% | 50.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 37.6% | 49.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 37.2% | 49.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 36.7% | 41.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | 35.9% | 45.7% |
| Q4 25 | 20.1% | -4.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 21.4% | -7.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 18.3% | -2.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 18.9% | -16.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 19.9% | -16.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 21.1% | -8.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 17.8% | -17.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 17.8% | -18.8% |
| Q4 25 | 16.1% | -3.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 16.9% | -6.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 14.3% | -1.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 14.8% | -16.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 15.7% | -17.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 17.2% | -6.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 14.7% | -17.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 14.7% | -18.6% |
| Q4 25 | $0.49 | $-0.02 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.60 | $-0.04 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.47 | $-0.01 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.42 | $-0.08 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.49 | $-0.10 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.61 | $-0.04 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-52.00 | $-0.10 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.42 | $-0.10 |
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 | $269.3M | $25.4M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $551.3M | $51.0M |
| Total Assets | $749.0M | $63.6M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $269.3M | $25.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $249.8M | $26.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $193.8M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $149.2M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $112.8M | $30.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $77.0M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $327.0M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $277.0M | — |
| Q4 25 | $551.3M | $51.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $504.1M | $51.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $444.0M | $53.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $400.2M | $53.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $360.1M | $64.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $306.6M | $72.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $559.5M | $75.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $510.2M | $80.3M |
| Q4 25 | $749.0M | $63.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $737.8M | $60.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $672.9M | $62.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $594.0M | $62.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $557.4M | $68.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $522.6M | $72.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $770.2M | $72.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $719.9M | $85.1M |
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 | $25.7M | $-507.0K |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $19.9M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 6.9% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 2.0% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 0.55× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $156.8M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $25.7M | $-507.0K | ||
| Q3 25 | $59.1M | $116.0K | ||
| Q2 25 | $60.1M | $-1.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $46.5M | $-2.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $42.6M | $-2.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $57.5M | $3.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $60.4M | $282.0K | ||
| Q1 24 | $35.4M | $-3.2M |
| Q4 25 | $19.9M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $56.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $44.6M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $36.3M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $35.7M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $53.8M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $49.6M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $28.7M | — |
| Q4 25 | 6.9% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 16.9% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 14.2% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 13.6% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 12.3% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 16.3% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 16.7% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 10.6% | — |
| Q4 25 | 2.0% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.9% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 4.9% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.8% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.4% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.1% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.6% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.5% | — |
| Q4 25 | 0.55× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.06× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.34× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.17× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.93× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.01× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.38× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.89× | — |
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.
