VOL. XCIV, NO. 247

★ WIDE MOAT STOCKS COMPARISON ★

NO ADVICE

Wednesday, December 31, 2025

Stock Comparison

Monster Beverage Corporation vs PepsiCo, Inc.

Compare moat strength, market structure, and segment coverage to understand how each company defends its edge.

Monster Beverage Corporation

MNST · Nasdaq Global Select Market

Market cap (USD)$65.7B
SectorConsumer
CountryUS
Data as of2025-12-31
Moat score
76/ 100

Weighted average of segment moat scores, combining moat strength, durability, confidence, market structure, pricing power, and market share.

Full stock profile

Dive deeper into Monster Beverage Corporation's moat claims, evidence, and risks.

View MNST analysis

PepsiCo, Inc.

PEP · Nasdaq Global Select Market

Market cap (USD)$199.4B
SectorConsumer
CountryUS
Data as of2025-12-23
Moat score
72/ 100

Weighted average of segment moat scores, combining moat strength, durability, confidence, market structure, pricing power, and market share.

Full stock profile

Dive deeper into PepsiCo, Inc.'s moat claims, evidence, and risks.

View PEP analysis

Comparison highlights

  • Moat score gap: Monster Beverage Corporation leads (76 / 100 vs 72 / 100 for PepsiCo, Inc.).
  • Segment focus: Monster Beverage Corporation has 4 segments (91.6% in Monster Energy Drinks); PepsiCo, Inc. has 7 segments (27% in Frito-Lay North America (FLNA)).
  • Moat breadth: Monster Beverage Corporation has 5 moat types across 3 domains; PepsiCo, Inc. has 4 across 2.

Primary market context

Monster Beverage Corporation

Monster Energy Drinks

Market

Energy drinks

Geography

Global

Customer

Retail consumers (via bottlers/distributors and retailers); some direct-to-retail

Role

Brand owner, marketer, and RTD finished-goods seller

Revenue share

91.6%

PepsiCo, Inc.

Frito-Lay North America (FLNA)

Market

Branded convenient foods (salty snacks, dips and adjacent categories)

Geography

United States and Canada

Customer

Retailers, convenience stores, foodservice

Role

Branded manufacturer + distributor (DSD/warehouse/distributor networks)

Revenue share

27%

Side-by-side metrics

Monster Beverage Corporation
PepsiCo, Inc.
Ticker / Exchange
MNST - Nasdaq Global Select Market
PEP - Nasdaq Global Select Market
Market cap (USD)
$65.7B
$199.4B
Sector
Consumer
Consumer
HQ country
US
US
Primary segment
Monster Energy Drinks
Frito-Lay North America (FLNA)
Market structure
Oligopoly
Oligopoly
Market share
33%-35% (reported)
54%-58% (implied)
HHI estimate
n/a
3,530
Pricing power
Moderate
Moderate
Moat score
76 / 100
72 / 100
Moat domains
Supply, Demand, Legal
Supply, Demand
Last update
2025-12-31
2025-12-23

Moat coverage

Shared moat types

Distribution ControlBrand Trust

Monster Beverage Corporation strengths

Preferential Input AccessContractual ExclusivitySpecialty flavor formulations (AFF)

PepsiCo, Inc. strengths

Scale Economies Unit CostScope Economies

Segment mix

Monster Beverage Corporation segments

Full profile >

Monster Energy Drinks

Oligopoly

91.6%

Strategic Brands

Oligopoly

5.8%

Alcohol Brands

Competitive

2.3%

Other (AFF Third-Party Products)

Competitive

0.3%

PepsiCo, Inc. segments

Full profile >

Frito-Lay North America (FLNA)

Oligopoly

27%

Quaker Foods North America (QFNA)

Competitive

4.2%

PepsiCo Beverages North America (PBNA)

Oligopoly

19.9%

Latin America (LatAm)

Oligopoly

12.3%

Europe

Oligopoly

22.4%

Africa, Middle East and South Asia (AMESA)

Competitive

8.8%

Asia Pacific, Australia & New Zealand and China Region (APAC)

Competitive

5.5%

Want the full wide moat stocks list?

Browse the full ranking of wide moat stocks, updated with moat scores and segment context.

View the moat stocks list

Curation & Accuracy

This directory blends AI‑assisted discovery with human curation. Entries are reviewed, edited, and organized with the goal of expanding coverage and sharpening quality over time. Your feedback helps steer improvements (because no single human can capture everything all at once).

Details change. Pricing, features, and availability may be incomplete or out of date. Treat listings as a starting point and verify on the provider’s site before making decisions. If you spot an error or a gap, send a quick note and I’ll adjust.