Premium Brands Competitors
| PBH Stock | CAD 87.32 0.30 0.34% |
Correlation: Premium Brands vs Else Nutrition Details
Moderate diversification
For the present investment horizon, the measured correlation between Premium Brands and Else Nutrition stands at 0.25, or Moderate diversification. This chart helps evaluate whether adding Else Nutrition genuinely reduces risk relative to holding Premium Brands alone.
Moving together with Premium Stock
Moving against Premium Stock
The mean reversion effect in Premium Brands is stronger when the initial deviation was driven by sentiment rather than fundamentals. Such deviations have sometimes corrected when the initial catalyst fades, though timing remains uncertain. The degree to which Premium Brands' exhibits mean reversion depends on how efficiently the market prices new information.
Premium Brands Competition Correlation Matrix
Correlation analysis between Premium Brands Holdings and its competitors provides context for understanding whether diversification is real or only superficial inside the same peer group. Used correctly, correlation analysis helps separate broad industry exposure from company-specific behavior before additional capital is allocated across the peer group.
| 0.32 | 0.57 | 0.84 | 0.9 | 0.56 | -0.8 | MFI | ||
| 0.32 | 0.77 | 0.69 | 0.62 | 0.56 | -0.31 | JWEL | ||
| 0.57 | 0.77 | 0.79 | 0.8 | 0.75 | -0.53 | HLF | ||
| 0.84 | 0.69 | 0.79 | 0.93 | 0.77 | -0.77 | NWC | ||
| 0.9 | 0.62 | 0.8 | 0.93 | 0.71 | -0.77 | SOY | ||
| 0.56 | 0.56 | 0.75 | 0.77 | 0.71 | -0.55 | BU | ||
| -0.8 | -0.31 | -0.53 | -0.77 | -0.77 | -0.55 | BABY | ||
High positive correlations
| High negative correlations
|
Risk-Adjusted Indicators
Return momentum in Premium Stock is more useful when tested against peer-relative fundamentals and risk. Risk-adjusted metrics help compare Premium Brands' efficiency and downside exposure against peers on a like-for-like basis. These indicators are quantitative in nature and help investors evaluate volatility and risk-adjusted expected returns across different positions.| Mean Deviation | Jensen Alpha | Sortino Ratio | Treynor Ratio | Semi Deviation | Expected Shortfall | Potential Upside | Value @Risk | Maximum Drawdown | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MFI | 1.21 | 0.27 | 0.25 | -1.87 | 1.04 | 2.55 | 8.05 | |||
| JWEL | 1.08 | 0.10 | 0.11 | 0.19 | 1.14 | 2.55 | 6.18 | |||
| HLF | 0.85 | 0.09 | 0.12 | 0.22 | 0.96 | 1.31 | 7.46 | |||
| NWC | 0.87 | 0.15 | 0.22 | 1.05 | 0.75 | 2.30 | 5.34 | |||
| SOY | 1.98 | 1.00 | 0.63 | 0.43 | 0.54 | 4.85 | 32.00 | |||
| BU | 3.51 | 0.21 | 0.06 | -0.73 | 4.36 | 9.17 | 26.36 | |||
| BABY | 6.42 | -0.68 | 0.00 | 0.48 | 0.00 | 15.79 | 65.08 |
Premium Brands Competitive Analysis
Among Maple Leaf, Jamieson Wellness, and High Liner and Premium Brands, each company brings a distinct financial profile to the table. Premium Brands contributes 7.48 B in revenue from a 4.52 B base. Profitability stands at a 0.54% net margin with return on equity reaching 2.37%. Profit margins tilt toward Maple Leaf at 13.84% against Premium Brands at 0.54%. Premium Brands leads on revenue, 7.48 B to 822.1 M, a substantial gap. Market capitalization diverges sharply here: 4.52 B versus 418.0 M, giving Premium Brands a clear size advantage.| Better Than Average | Worse Than Peers | View Performance Chart |
Premium Brands Competition Peer Performance Charts
How to Analyze Premium Brands Against Peers
Premium Brands' peer analysis compares Premium Brands with related companies to put valuation, quality, and risk metrics in context. This helps determine whether recent performance is company-specific or broadly sector-driven. A practical workflow includes:- Set a relevant peer group: Include direct competitors and close alternatives with comparable business exposure.
- Benchmark core financials: Compare profitability, growth, capital structure, and cash flow quality.
- Check valuation dispersion: Review whether Premium Brands trades at a premium or discount versus peers and why.
- Evaluate risk profile: Compare volatility, drawdowns, and correlation to avoid false diversification assumptions.
- Document the thesis: Record where Premium Brands leads or lags and what catalysts could close or widen the gap.
Peer Comparison Metrics & Methodology
Premium Brands carries less net debt relative to EBITDA than most competitors, giving it more room to invest or weather downturns. Competitive positioning can change as margins, market share, and balance-sheet flexibility shift. For peer comparison, Premium Brands has a market cap of 4.52 B, P/E of 47.86, profit margin of 0.54%.
Inputs for Premium Brands Holdings come from periodic company reporting and market reference feeds and are mapped into a consistent reporting framework. Some fields can appear with publication lag.