vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Celsius Holdings, Inc. (CELH) and NATIONAL BEVERAGE CORP (FIZZ), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Celsius Holdings, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($721.6M vs $288.3M, roughly 2.5× NATIONAL BEVERAGE CORP). NATIONAL BEVERAGE CORP runs the higher net margin — 3.4% vs 16.1%, a 12.7% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Celsius Holdings, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (117.2% vs -1.0%). NATIONAL BEVERAGE CORP produced more free cash flow last quarter ($19.9M vs $-130.0M). Over the past eight quarters, Celsius Holdings, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (42.4% CAGR vs 3.3%).
Celsius Holdings, Inc. is an American company that produces a range of fitness and energy drinks under the brand name Celsius. The company's products are marketed as healthy, to which the CEO attributes the brand's success.
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.
CELH vs FIZZ — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q2 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $721.6M | $288.3M |
| Net Profit | $24.7M | $46.4M |
| Gross Margin | 47.4% | 37.9% |
| Operating Margin | 3.6% | 20.1% |
| Net Margin | 3.4% | 16.1% |
| Revenue YoY | 117.2% | -1.0% |
| Net Profit YoY | 231.1% | 1.6% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.04 | $0.49 |
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 | $721.6M | $288.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $725.1M | $330.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $739.3M | $313.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $329.3M | $267.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $332.2M | $291.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $265.7M | $329.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $402.0M | $297.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $355.7M | $270.1M |
| Q4 25 | $24.7M | $46.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-61.0M | $55.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $99.9M | $44.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $44.4M | $39.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-18.9M | $45.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.4M | $56.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $79.8M | $43.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $77.8M | $39.6M |
| Q4 25 | 47.4% | 37.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 51.3% | 38.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 51.5% | 36.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 52.3% | 37.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 50.2% | 37.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 46.0% | 37.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 52.0% | 36.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 51.2% | 35.9% |
| Q4 25 | 3.6% | 20.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | -11.0% | 21.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 19.3% | 18.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 15.8% | 18.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | -5.6% | 19.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | -1.2% | 21.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 23.4% | 17.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 23.4% | 17.8% |
| Q4 25 | 3.4% | 16.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | -8.4% | 16.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 13.5% | 14.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 13.5% | 14.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | -5.7% | 15.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.4% | 17.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 19.8% | 14.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 21.9% | 14.7% |
| Q4 25 | $0.04 | $0.49 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.27 | $0.60 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.33 | $0.47 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.15 | $0.42 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.10 | $0.49 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.00 | $0.61 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.28 | $-52.00 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.27 | $0.42 |
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 | $398.9M | $269.3M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $676.9M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.2B | $551.3M |
| Total Assets | $5.1B | $749.0M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.57× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $398.9M | $269.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $806.0M | $249.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $615.2M | $193.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $977.3M | $149.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $890.2M | $112.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $903.7M | $77.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $903.2M | $327.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $879.5M | $277.0M |
| Q4 25 | $676.9M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $870.5M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $871.9M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | $1.2B | $551.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2B | $504.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.3B | $444.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $443.1M | $400.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $399.9M | $360.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $423.6M | $306.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $415.8M | $559.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $338.2M | $510.2M |
| Q4 25 | $5.1B | $749.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.3B | $737.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.8B | $672.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.9B | $594.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.8B | $557.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.7B | $522.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.7B | $770.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.6B | $719.9M |
| Q4 25 | 0.57× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.72× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.69× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
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 | $-119.4M | $25.7M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-130.0M | $19.9M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -18.0% | 6.9% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 1.5% | 2.0% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | -4.83× | 0.55× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $323.4M | $156.8M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $-119.4M | $25.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $331.8M | $59.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $43.7M | $60.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $103.4M | $46.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $75.7M | $42.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $12.9M | $57.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $39.6M | $60.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $134.6M | $35.4M |
| Q4 25 | $-130.0M | $19.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $321.5M | $56.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $35.5M | $44.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $96.4M | $36.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $70.3M | $35.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.7M | $53.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $30.4M | $49.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $130.1M | $28.7M |
| Q4 25 | -18.0% | 6.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 44.3% | 16.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 4.8% | 14.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 29.3% | 13.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 21.2% | 12.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.3% | 16.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 7.6% | 16.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 36.6% | 10.6% |
| Q4 25 | 1.5% | 2.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.4% | 0.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.1% | 4.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.1% | 3.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.6% | 2.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.6% | 1.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.3% | 3.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.3% | 2.5% |
| Q4 25 | -4.83× | 0.55× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.06× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.44× | 1.34× | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.33× | 1.17× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.93× | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.03× | 1.01× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.50× | 1.38× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.73× | 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.
