Quick verdict: CAG vs GIS in 2026

General Mills, Inc. (GIS) currently holds a notable edge over Conagra Brands, Inc. (CAG) in this 2026 stock comparison, leading across key metrics related to profitability, growth stability, and analyst sentiment. GIS demonstrates stronger fundamentals, better margins, and higher expected upside from both analyst targets and discounted cash flow models. CAG, despite a lower price-to-book ratio and slightly higher dividend yield, struggles with negative net margins and revenue decline, posing significant challenges for potential investors. Not investment advice.

CAG vs GIS: key metrics side by side

Full side-by-side comparison of CAG and GIS across valuation, profitability, growth and analyst sentiment. Data updated 2026-05-07.

CAG vs GIS valuation comparison

When assessing CAG vs GIS valuation, investors encounter distinctly different pictures. Conagra Brands (CAG) currently trades at a P/E ratio of -154.79x, reflecting its negative net income. A negative P/E ratio indicates that the company is currently unprofitable, which makes traditional P/E comparisons difficult and suggests underlying operational challenges. In contrast, General Mills (GIS) boasts a positive P/E ratio of 8.55x, which is relatively low and generally appealing for value investors, indicating that its earnings are substantial relative to its stock price.

Furthermore, CAG’s price-to-book (P/B) ratio stands at 0.82x, suggesting that its market capitalization is below its book value, potentially indicating an undervalued asset base. GIS, on the other hand, trades at a P/B of 2.03x, which is higher but still reasonable for a stable consumer defensive company. While CAG appears “cheaper” on a P/B basis, its negative earnings are a significant concern. The discounted cash flow (DCF) models provide another perspective on intrinsic value, with CAG showing a potential upside of +180.4% to $39.24, while GIS suggests an even more substantial upside of +236.2% to $117.58. This indicates that despite CAG’s lower P/B, the market believes GIS has a significantly higher intrinsic value potential based on its future cash flows, reinforcing GIS as a more attractive “value” proposition when considering true profitability and long-term potential in this CAG vs GIS valuation analysis.

CAG vs GIS growth comparison

In the CAG vs GIS growth comparison, both companies are currently facing revenue challenges, though General Mills (GIS) demonstrates slightly stronger resilience. Conagra Brands (CAG) reported a revenue growth of -3.6% year-over-year, indicating a more significant contraction in its top line. This decline could be attributed to various factors such as intense competition, changing consumer preferences, or macroeconomic headwinds impacting the consumer defensive sector.

General Mills (GIS), while also experiencing negative growth, performed marginally better with a revenue growth of -1.9% year-over-year. This comparatively less severe decline suggests that GIS may have stronger brand loyalty, more effective pricing strategies, or a more diversified product portfolio that helps cushion the impact of market pressures. When considering forward estimates and the overall market momentum, GIS’s ability to limit its revenue contraction compared to CAG positions it as the company with relatively stronger momentum, even as both navigate a challenging period for growth. Its superior EBITDA margin of 16.6% compared to CAG’s 8.38% also points to better operational efficiency that could support future growth initiatives.

CAG vs GIS profitability

Evaluating CAG vs GIS profitability reveals a stark difference in their financial health. General Mills (GIS) clearly outperforms Conagra Brands (CAG) across key profitability metrics. GIS boasts a robust net margin of 12.05%, indicating its strong ability to convert revenue into profit. This is significantly higher than CAG, which reported a negative net margin of -0.39%, signaling that the company is currently operating at a loss. Similarly, GIS’s EBITDA margin of 16.6% is nearly double that of CAG’s 8.38%, underscoring GIS’s superior operational efficiency and ability to manage its core business expenses.

While both companies report “N/A%” for Return on Equity (ROE), likely due to specific reporting conditions or current data availability, the free cash flow (FCF) yield offers another angle on which generates more cash. Interestingly, CAG has a higher FCF yield of 12.58% compared to GIS’s 8.84%. This suggests that despite its negative net margins, CAG is still generating a healthy amount of cash relative to its market cap, possibly due to non-cash expenses, working capital management, or capital expenditure cycles. However, for overall sustained profitability and the ability to generate earnings, GIS’s positive and substantial net and EBITDA margins position it as the far more profitable entity.

Analyst ratings: CAG vs GIS

A look at the analyst ratings for CAG vs GIS provides further insight into market sentiment for these consumer defensive giants. Conagra Brands (CAG) is covered by 25 analysts, with 24.0% recommending a “Buy” rating. The consensus for CAG is currently “Hold,” with an average target price set at $17.55, implying a potential upside of +25.4% from its current price of $13.995.

General Mills (GIS), with a slightly larger analyst following of 34, shows a marginally higher percentage of “Buy” ratings at 26.5%. Like CAG, the consensus for GIS is also “Hold.” However, the average analyst target price for GIS is significantly higher at $46.58, representing a more substantial potential upside of +33.2% from its current price of $34.97. When comparing which do analysts prefer, GIS appears to have a slight edge, not only with a higher proportion of buy recommendations but also with a more optimistic target price upside, suggesting greater confidence in its future performance among the analyst community.

Should I buy CAG or GIS stock in 2026?

For growth-oriented investors asking “should I buy CAG or GIS stock in 2026?”, General Mills (GIS) appears to be the more compelling option. While both companies are currently experiencing revenue declines, GIS’s -1.9% year-over-year revenue growth is less severe than CAG’s -3.6%. More importantly, GIS demonstrates robust profitability with a 12.05% net margin and 16.6% EBITDA margin, indicating a healthier and more efficient business operation that can better leverage future growth opportunities. CAG’s negative net margin, by contrast, presents a significant hurdle for growth prospects.

For value investors, the decision regarding CAG vs GIS fundamentals and valuation is nuanced. CAG trades at a P/B of 0.82x, which might initially seem attractive as it’s below book value. However, its negative P/E of -154.79x indicates that the company is currently unprofitable, making it a challenging ‘value’ play in the traditional sense. General Mills (GIS), with a P/E of 8.55x, offers a positive and relatively low earnings multiple for a profitable company. Furthermore, GIS’s discounted cash flow (DCF) model suggests a much higher upside of +236.2% compared to CAG’s +180.4%, implying that GIS offers a more robust long-term value proposition based on its future earning potential.

Income-focused investors comparing CAG vs GIS for dividend payouts will find that Conagra Brands (CAG) offers a slightly higher dividend yield of 0.1% compared to General Mills (GIS)’s 0.07%. Both yields are relatively modest in the current market environment. While CAG has a marginal lead in yield, investors should weigh this against its current unprofitability. For a more stable and reliable dividend, GIS’s strong profitability and cash flow generation might be preferred, even with a slightly lower yield. This is not investment advice; always conduct thorough personal research.

More CAG and GIS comparisons

CAG full stock analysis · GIS full stock analysis · All stock comparisons

FAQ: CAG vs GIS