Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Sweetgreen, Inc.
How Sweetgreen, Inc. stacks up
SG · against 490 other Consumer Cyclical companies of similar size
Growth
78/ 100
Near the top of its peers.
Ranked #112 of 491 · scores higher than 76% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the growth score48 peers with a growth score of 70–79, including SG · Click a bar to see the companies
Why growth scores 78?
Weighted metrics compared with all Consumer Cyclical companies.Mainly thanks to its earnings per share growth and 3-year revenue growth, which are stronger than most Consumer Cyclical peers.
- slower revenue growth over the last year: weaker than 67% of peers. Revenue growth: -0.6% vs peer median 3.7%
- faster revenue growth over three years: stronger than 70% of peers. 3-year revenue growth: 9.4% vs peer median 4.3%
- Earnings per share turned from a loss to a profit. Earnings per share growth: — vs peer median 4.2%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = SG, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | SG | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue growthHigher is better · 491 reported | -0.6% | 3.7% | 32% | 33% | |
| Earnings per share growthHigher is better · 375 reported | Not reported | 4.3% | — | — | 33% |
| 3-year revenue growthHigher is better · 488 reported | 9.4% | 4.8% | 69% | 33% |
A metric that is not reported is left out of the score; the other weights are rescaled.
Ranking by growth score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around SG| Rank | Company | Market cap | Growth | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 177.5B INR (≈$2.1B) | 100 | ||
| 2 | 7.2B CNY (≈$1.0B) | 99 | 87 | |
| 2 | 154.7B JPY (≈$1.1B) | 99 | 77 | |
| 2 | 1.3B EUR (≈$1.4B) | 99 | 34 | |
| 5 | 9.9B HKD (≈$1.3B) | 98 | 82 | |
| 112 | 260.6B JPY (≈$1.8B) | 78 | 69 | |
| 112 |
Scores are sector-relative percentiles from the latest snapshot, always calculated against the whole sector: narrowing the comparison group changes who you compare with, not the scores. Missing metrics are left out and the remaining weights rescaled. How we score