Skip to main content
Homepage
Full 18-step deep-dive · ~20–30 min · a member feature.
AGING Analysis Report
Aug 11, 2026
12 days ago · 100% complete
NOT DEPENDABLE This report predates a filing — its financial basis has been replaced.
Report generated: Aug 11, 2026 · Filing on record since: Aug 22, 2026 · 11 days after
For AI assistants & researchers — machine-readable summary of this page

What this page is: Delvantic's full research page for Mondelez International, Inc. (MDLZ) — AI-driven forensic equity research: mechanical valuation models (DCF, EPV, anchored-PE, scenario) plus three independent AI lenses (Quality / Value / Sentiment). Everything below is rendered server-side; you are not missing content that requires JavaScript. All scores are predictions and research opinions, not financial advice.

Our current read (analysis of 2026-08-23): Designation Low · Gem Score -30 (−100…+100 Quality+Value blend) · Quality 19 · Value -70 · Sentiment -26 (timing only, not weighted)

Page map (sections in order; each card carries a stable reference-name attribute you can cite):

  • profile-header / price-overview — company profile, live quote, market cap
  • extended-analysisthe core: three AI lens reads with findings, scores, and the analyst memo
  • future-predictions — our forward price-band predictions
  • market-narrative / ai-findings / gpt-critique — narrative context, cross-model findings, and an adversarial critique of our own analysis (near the end of the document)
  • Members-only sections (render as login gates for anonymous readers): price-history, income-trend, key-metrics, financials (statement tables), insider-trading. The analysis above is public; the raw data tables require a free account.

More for machine readers: site briefing at /llms.txt · any ticker resolves at delvantic.com/stock/TICKER · raw inputs are public-company filings and market data (via licensed data feeds); every model, score, lens read, and prediction on this page is Delvantic's own analysis.

Mondelez International, Inc.

MDLZ NASDAQ
Consumer Defensive · Confectioners
Chicago, IL 60607, United States mondelezinternational.com Updated Aug 11, 11:33am
Price
$61.22
Market Cap
$78.5B
Employees
91,000
Beta
0.40
Avg Volume
9,292,613
Last Dividend
$2.00
CEO
Mr. Dirk Van de Put

Mondelez International, Inc. is a global snack food company focused on manufacturing and marketing a broad portfolio of well-known branded products. Mondelez International, Inc. sells biscuits, baked snacks, chocolate, gum, and candy, along with selected cheese, grocery, and powdered beverage products in certain markets. Its brands include Oreo, Ritz, belVita, LU, Cadbury Dairy Milk, Milka, Toblerone, and CLIF Bar, giving the company a strong presence across everyday snacking occasions. The business serves consumers through supermarkets, convenience stores, wholesalers, mass merchandisers, and digital retail channels, supported by a wide distribution network. Mondelez International, Inc. is a major participant in the packaged snacks and confectionery market, with operations spanning North America, Europe, Latin America, and the Asia, Middle East, and Africa region.

Runs with full report Generated: Aug 11, 2026 11:45am
Price Overview
Price at report time
$61.47
as of Aug 11, 11:51am (12d ago)
Change · Aug 11
-0.06 (-0.10%)
Day Range
$60.88 – $61.52
52-Week Range
$51.20 – $66.65
50-Day MA
$61.09
200-Day MA
$58.64
Volume
154,137.00
Right now · live
Log in to get the live feed
Members see the real-time price and the move since this report (over 12d).
Share Structure
Outstanding 1,276,308,057.00
Float 1,258,733,295.00
Free Float 98.6%
High free float — 98.6% of shares trade freely, ~1.4% held by insiders/institutions
Very liquid — most shares trade freely. Low insider ownership can mean less management alignment, but makes large position sizing straightforward.
Price History (1 Year)
Last updated: Aug 11, 2026 11:54am (12d ago)
Revenue & Net Income Trend
The directional story — useful even when net income is negative.
Last updated: Aug 11, 2026 11:54am (12d ago)
Revenue
The top line — total sales before any costs or taxes are subtracted. A measure of how much business the company is doing.
Net Income
The bottom line — profit left after subtracting all expenses, interest, and taxes from revenue. Reflects accounting profitability, but includes non-cash items like depreciation, so it isn't the same as cash earned.
Operating Cash Flow
The real cash generated by the day-to-day business — selling products, paying suppliers, collecting from customers. Calculated from net income by adding back non-cash items and adjusting for timing (unpaid bills, unsold inventory). When OCF consistently lags net income, the reported profit may not be converting to real money.
Period Revenue Net Income Net Margin YoY/QoQ
Key Metrics
TD Twelve Data statement HEX SEC filing
Industry comparison last run: Aug 11, 2026 11:43am
P/E Ratio (Price per dollar of earnings)
HEX
Stock Price / EPS (Diluted)
32.39
Stock Price: $61.22
EPS (Diluted): 1.89
P/B Ratio (Price vs net asset value)
HEX
Stock Price / Book Value Per Share
3.07
Stock Price: $61.22
Total Equity: $25.89B
Shares: 1,298,000,000
EV/EBITDA (Total value vs operating profit)
HEX
Enterprise Value / EBITDA
16.25
Market Cap: $78.53B
Total Debt: $2.69B
Cash: $2.20B
EBITDA: $4.91B
Enterprise Value (Takeover price (cap + debt - cash))
HEX
Market Cap + Total Debt - Cash
$79.7B
Market Cap: $78.53B
Total Debt: $2.69B
Cash: $2.20B
Gross Margin (Revenue left after direct costs)
HEX
Gross Profit / Revenue
28.4%
Gross Profit: $10.94B
Revenue: $38.54B
Operating Margin (Revenue left after all operations)
HEX
Operating Income / Revenue
9.2%
Operating Income: $3.55B
Revenue: $38.54B
Net Margin (Revenue left as actual profit)
HEX
Net Income / Revenue
6.4%
Net Income: $2.45B
Revenue: $38.54B
ROE (Profit from shareholder equity)
HEX
Net Income / Total Equity
9.5%
Net Income: $2.45B
Total Equity: $25.89B
ROIC (Profit from all invested capital)
HEX
NOPAT / Invested Capital
10.0%
Operating Income: $3.55B
Tax Rate: 25.9%
Equity: $25.89B
Total Debt: $2.69B
Cash: $2.20B
Current Ratio (Can it pay short-term bills)
HEX
Current Assets / Current Liabilities
0.59
Current Assets: $12.95B
Current Liabilities: $21.86B
Debt/Equity (Leverage — debt vs equity)
HEX
Total Debt / Total Equity
0.10
Short-Term Debt: $2.69B
Long-Term Debt: $0.00
Total Debt: $2.69B
Total Equity: $25.89B
Rev/Share (Top-line per share)
HEX
Revenue / Shares Outstanding
$29.69
Revenue: $38.54B
Shares: 1,298,000,000
Book Value/Share (Net assets per share)
HEX
(Total Assets - Total Liabilities) / Shares
$19.95
Total Equity: $25.89B
Shares: 1,298,000,000
FCF/Share (Real cash generated per share)
HEX
(Operating Cash Flow + CapEx) / Shares
$2.49
Operating CF: $4.51B
CapEx: -$1.28B
Shares: 1,298,000,000
CapEx is negative (outflow) — added to OCF to get FCF
Div Yield (Annual income from holding)
TD
Last Annual Dividend / Stock Price
3.3%
Last Dividend: $2.00
Stock Price: $61.22
Payout Ratio (Earnings paid out as dividends)
HEX
Dividends Paid / Net Income
101.5%
Dividends Paid: -$2.49B
Net Income: $2.45B
Industry Benchmarks
Last run: Aug 11, 2026 11:43am
Compares MDLZ against LLM-researched typical ranges for its industry. One research call per industry, cached indefinitely — every stock in the same industry reuses the same baseline.
Income Statement (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 11, 2026 11:54am (12d ago)
Metric 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Revenue $28.7B $31.5B $36.0B $36.4B $38.5B
Cost of Revenue $17.5B $20.2B $22.3B $22.2B $27.6B
Gross Profit $11.3B $11.3B $13.8B $14.3B $10.9B
Operating Expenses $6.6B $7.8B $8.3B $7.9B $7.4B
Operating Income $4.7B $3.5B $5.5B $6.3B $3.5B
Net Income $4.3B $2.7B $5.0B $4.6B $2.5B
EBITDA $5.8B $4.6B $6.7B $7.6B $4.9B
EPS $3.06 $1.97 $3.64 $3.44 $1.89
EPS (Diluted) $3.04 $1.96 $3.62 $3.42 $1.89
Balance Sheet (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 11, 2026 11:34am (12d ago)
Metric 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Cash & Equivalents $3.6B $1.9B $1.9B $1.4B $2.2B
Total Current Assets $10.3B $10.1B $11.7B $13.2B $13.0B
Total Assets $67.1B $71.2B $71.4B $68.5B $71.5B
Current Liabilities $14.0B $16.7B $19.0B $19.5B $21.9B
Long-Term Debt
Total Liabilities $38.8B $44.2B $43.0B $41.5B $45.6B
Total Equity $28.3B $26.9B $28.4B $27.0B $25.9B
Retained Earnings $30.8B $31.5B $34.2B $36.5B $36.4B
Cash Flow (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 11, 2026 11:54am (12d ago)
Metric 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Operating Cash Flow $4.1B $3.9B $4.7B $4.9B $4.5B
Capital Expenditure -$965.0M -$906.0M -$1.1B -$1.4B -$1.3B
Free Cash Flow $3.2B $3.0B $3.6B $3.5B $3.2B
Acquisitions (net) -$833.0M -$5.3B $19.0M -$240.0M -$15.0M
Net Debt Issued / (Repaid) -$326.0M $1.5B -$2.2B -$883.0M -$483.0M
Dividends Paid -$1.8B -$2.0B -$2.2B -$2.3B -$2.5B
Stock Buybacks -$2.1B -$2.0B -$1.5B -$2.3B -$2.4B
Net Change in Cash -$97.0M -$1.6B -$64.0M -$484.0M $795.0M
Growth Trends (YoY %)
Last updated: Aug 11, 2026 11:54am (12d ago)
Metric 2022 2023 2024 2025
Revenue Growth +9.7% +14.4% +1.2% +5.8%
Gross Profit Growth +0.5% +21.7% +3.6% -23.3%
Operating Income Growth -24.0% +55.7% +15.3% -44.1%
Net Income Growth -36.8% +82.5% -7.0% -46.8%
EBITDA Growth -19.5% +44.7% +13.8% -35.8%
Dividend History (Last 20)
Last updated: Aug 11, 2026 11:35am (12d ago)
Date Dividend Declaration Record Payment
2026-06-30 $0.50
2026-03-31 $0.50
2025-12-31 $0.50
2025-09-30 $0.50
2025-06-30 $0.47
2025-03-31 $0.47
2024-12-31 $0.47
2024-09-30 $0.47
2024-06-28 $0.43
2024-03-27 $0.43
2023-12-28 $0.43
2023-09-28 $0.43
2023-06-29 $0.39
2023-03-30 $0.39
2022-12-29 $0.39
2022-09-29 $0.39
2022-06-29 $0.35
2022-03-30 $0.35
2021-12-30 $0.35
2021-09-29 $0.35
0Company Classification 1Industry Landscape 2Company Momentum 3Forward Projection 4aDCF Valuation 4bEarnings Power Value 4cAnchored PE 4dReverse DCF 4eRevenue-Based DCF 4fAnchored P/S 4gScenario Analysis 4hDividend Discount Model 4iBook Value Analysis 4jInsider Activity 4fCash Flow Quality 4gDebt Maturity Risk 4hMacro Environment 4iSector Intelligence 4jRevenue Confidence 4kSensitivity Analysis 4lSector Demand Cycle 5AI Investigation 5bThesis Evaluation 6Valuation Synthesis
computed not applicable not yet run 12 computed · 6 not applicable · 6 not yet run
Narrative Economics
The story the market is telling about this stock — the intangible X-factor (founder mythology, cult dynamics, TAM-of-imagination) that moves price beyond what cash flows alone explain. After Shiller, Narrative Economics.
No narrative profile yet for MDLZ — it's generated by the pipeline (market-narrative step).
AI Lens 4th lens · how AI reaches this business · 5-yr
2026-08-11
The creme is there an opportunity here? Neutral
AI is a modest overhead tailwind here, not a thesis — anyone underwriting Mondelez on AI is answering the wrong question, since cocoa costs and private label decide the next five years.
Exposure is genuinely low (27): the scarce assets are plants, routes and cocoa access, and the monetized unit is a physical pack that software deflation cannot compress. The one AI channel that could matter to the numbers is formulation science aimed at cocoa intensity — watch gross margin recovery off the 28.4% 2025 trough alongside reformulated chocolate launches, because that is where cheap intelligence would actually show up. The offsetting risk to track early is AI-shortened private-label development cycles and any agentic grocery reordering that prices Oreo against store brand on cost per gram; if branded price gaps start narrowing under promotion, the mild 54 position slides toward the 39 bear.
54
AI Position
Mildly favorable - but AI is not what decides this company
Cheap intelligence trims Mondelez's marketing, trade-spend and supply-chain costs and may speed cocoa-reducing reformulation, while the real risks — cocoa economics, private label, and agent-mediated grocery baskets — sit mostly outside AI's reach.
Exposure 27 Confidence 68 50 = neutral
Primary Tailwind

Mondelez spends billions on advertising, agencies, trade promotion and demand planning across 150+ markets; cheap AI compresses creative production cost, sharpens promo ROI by SKU/retailer, and cuts forecast error that drives write-offs and out-of-stocks — a genuine SG&A and working-capital lever on a business whose 2025 operating margin fell to 9.2%.

Primary Pressure

If grocery replenishment migrates to AI agents and retailer algorithms optimizing on price-per-gram, brand recall — the asset Oreo and Cadbury are built on — loses some of its pricing premium, and AI simultaneously lowers the cost for retailers to spec and launch credible private-label lookalikes.

Critical Hinge

Whether AI-assisted formulation and sourcing analytics can materially cut cocoa/cocoa-butter intensity per unit without taste loss; the observable is gross margin recovery off the 28.4% 2025 trough at flat-to-lower cocoa-content claims on reformulated chocolate lines.

Hard to Reproduce

Physical capacity, decades of route-to-market and shelf negotiation across 150+ countries, cocoa supply relationships, and taste-memory brand equity in impulse categories — none of which cheap software reproduces.

Forensic fingerprint same 11 factors for every stock · 0 unfavorable · 50 neutral · 100 favorable
Underlying Need Persistence do people still need this at all? 95
Snacking demand is biological and habitual; AI does not touch it.
The job — an affordable, pleasurable, portable eating occasion — persists regardless of intelligence cost; health and sugar-tax pressure is a real headwind but unrelated to AI.
global snacking volume growth · chocolate consumption per capita trends · elasticity response to price increases
relevance 58 · confidence 92
Solution Persistence will they still solve it this way? 76
Branded packaged snacks remain the delivery form; brand premium is the erodible part.
Cheap AI does not create a substitute for a physical biscuit, but it does help retailers and small brands craft credible alternatives faster, chipping at the branded price gap.
private-label share in biscuits/chocolate · MDLZ price gap vs store brands · volume/mix split in reported growth
relevance 56 · confidence 74
Intelligence Commoditization does cheap AI power them or copy them? 47
Cheap AI powers Mondelez's overheads but also arms every challenger's marketing function.
The tools that cut MDLZ's creative and analytics costs are equally available to regional competitors and retailers, so the advantage is timing and scale of deployment, not exclusivity.
advertising spend as % of revenue · agency and creative cost disclosures · challenger-brand share gains in EU/EM
relevance 46 · confidence 66
Responsibility Transfer are they paid to take the blame? 42
Food-safety and label liability exists but nobody is paying Mondelez to absorb AI risk.
Unlike compliance vendors, MDLZ's liability shield is internal cost, not a monetized service that AI makes more valuable to outsource.
recall frequency and cost · regulatory labeling changes · QA automation in plants
relevance 18 · confidence 60
Scarcity Migration do their assets get rarer or more common? 63
As software becomes abundant, physical capacity, routes and cocoa access become relatively scarcer.
Mondelez's hardest assets — manufacturing footprint, distribution into millions of outlets, cocoa supply contracts — are exactly the things cheap intelligence cannot manufacture, and their relative importance rises.
cocoa sourcing cost vs peers · capex on capacity and automation · distribution reach in emerging markets
relevance 62 · confidence 70
Customer DIY Preference will customers just build it themselves? 59
The DIY threat is retailer private label, and AI shortens its development cycle.
Consumers cannot self-manufacture, but retailers can, and AI-assisted formulation, packaging design and demand analytics lower the cost of a convincing own-brand Oreo analogue.
retailer private-label launch cadence · shelf-space allocation shifts · promotional depth required to hold facings
relevance 40 · confidence 64
AI Intermediation Position do AI agents go through them or around them? 43
Mondelez sits behind retailers and would sit behind shopping agents too.
Impulse and gifting occasions are the least agent-mediated part of the category, but any migration of planned grocery baskets to price-optimizing agents strips brand recall of some of its pricing work.
share of sales via online grocery · agentic reorder pilots at major grocers · retail media ROI disclosures
relevance 55 · confidence 58
Data Leverage does their data make AI better? 44
Rich sell-through and panel data, but almost no proprietary consumer relationship.
MDLZ buys much of its consumer insight and its first-party data is thin relative to retailers, so its data does not make AI uniquely better for it than for competitors.
D2C and loyalty program scale · retailer data-sharing agreements · revenue growth management results
relevance 38 · confidence 60
AI Margin Conversion do the AI savings become profit? 55
Overhead savings are real but likely partly competed into price and promotion.
With operating margin at 9.2% after the cocoa shock, any AI-driven SG&A or trade-spend efficiency is visible, yet in a share-fighting category savings tend to fund promotion rather than reach shareholders.
SG&A ratio trajectory · trade promotion efficiency commentary · gross margin recovery cadence
relevance 66 · confidence 62
Revenue Unit Durability does the thing they charge for survive? 73
The monetized unit is a physical package — structurally immune to software deflation.
Revenue is per-pack, not per-seat or per-task, so cheap intelligence cannot compress the billing unit; only pricing power and volume can erode, and those move on cocoa and consumer income.
price/mix vs volume contribution · pack-size and shrinkflation response · emerging-market volume elasticity
relevance 50 · confidence 76
Entrant Compression how easily can newcomers copy them? 46
AI lowers the marketing and NPD cost of entry while capex and shelf access still guard the gate.
The advertising moat that historically deterred entrants weakens when AI makes professional creative and media optimization near-free; manufacturing scale and retailer relationships remain the real barrier.
small-brand share gains in snacking · cost of new-brand launches · M&A prices for challenger brands
relevance 52 · confidence 64

AI Lens thesis

Mondelez is a physical-asset, physical-transaction business: the snack must be made, shipped and eaten, so AI reaches it through overheads and decisions, not through the product itself. The favorable channels are real but bounded — creative and media production, trade-promotion optimization, demand forecasting, plant maintenance, and R&D for recipe reformulation under cocoa inflation. The unfavorable channels are structural rather than technical: AI compresses the cost of brand-building and product development for challengers and retailer private label, and if agentic ordering intermediates the grocery basket, the company loses a further slice of the consumer relationship it never owned. The 2025 margin collapse from 39.1% to 28.4% gross is a cocoa-cost event, not an AI event, and should not be read as either; AI's plausible five-year contribution is a few hundred basis points of overhead efficiency in a category where competitors get the same tools, so most of the gain is likely competed into price and promotion.

Thesis breaker Evidence that a top-3 retailer's AI-driven assortment or agentic basket engine is systematically substituting private label for Mondelez biscuits/chocolate at scale would move this from mildly favorable to a genuine disruption read.
What the market may be underestimating

Upside AI-accelerated formulation science is the most underappreciated channel: even a modest reduction in cocoa-solids intensity or successful cocoa-alternative blending, applied across the Cadbury/Milka/Toblerone volume base, is worth more than every back-office AI saving combined.

Downside Advertising is Mondelez's main barrier to entry; when AI makes brand-quality creative and media buying near-free, that barrier thins for hundreds of regional challengers even though shelf and capex barriers hold.

Outcome range spread 28

39Bear case
54Central case
67Bull case
Three headline numbers, deliberately never blended: Position (which way), Exposure (how much it matters at all), Confidence (how sure). The fingerprint asks every stock the same 11 questions so companies a sector label would lump together get told apart. Not an input to GEM/Coal or the Q/V/S lenses.
Claude Reading
Independent analyst synthesis · claude-opus-4-7 · generated 2026-08-11 11:53:58
Verdict Modestly overvalued at $61 — fair value $52-56 assuming margin recovery to ~12% operating; synthesis $36 target is too bearish because it extrapolates cocoa-shock trough as steady-state. Wait for two quarters of GM>32% before adding.

The raw numbers tell a clear deceleration story that the models are correctly identifying but perhaps mispricing. 2025 revenue of $38.54B was up 5.8% YoY, but operating income collapsed from $6.35B to $3.55B — a 44% drop — and net income fell from $4.61B to $2.45B. Gross margin compressed from 39.1% to 28.4% in a single year. That's not "margin normalization," that's a cocoa cost catastrophe (cocoa futures roughly tripled 2023-2024) working through COGS. The Q1 2026 print at $10.08B revenue with 5.6% net margin shows the pressure is still live, though quarterly margins have been noisy (7.6% in Q3 2025, then back down). This is a commodity-shock story, not a demand story — revenue is actually accelerating (recent YoY 5.8% vs 3.4% CAGR).

Where I part company with the synthesis: the $35.97 signal-adjusted fair value is anchoring on trailing depressed earnings and extrapolating a broken margin structure. At normalized ~14% operating margin (2021-2024 average was 12-17%) on $39B revenue, you get ~$5.5B operating income and roughly $4B net income — that's ~$3.00 EPS versus the current ~$1.89. On $3.00 normalized EPS, $61 is 20x, which is a discount to staples peers (KO ~24x, PEP ~22x, HSY ~20x). The market isn't paying 32x for growth; it's paying 32x on trough earnings because it (correctly) sees this as cyclical. The DCF-at-$36 framing implicitly assumes cocoa stays elevated forever and Mondelez cannot re-price — both dubious given confectionery pricing power has historically recovered gross margin within 6-8 quarters of commodity shocks.

That said, the contrarian bear case has real teeth beyond commodity math. Payout ratio is 101.5% — the dividend is being funded from the balance sheet, not earnings, and $3.24B FCF against a ~$2.6B dividend obligation leaves thin cover. Current ratio of 0.59 is genuinely weak. ROIC has fallen to 9.96%, barely above cost of capital, and ROA at 3.4% is anemic. If cocoa normalizes slowly (2027+) and GLP-1 adoption structurally suppresses snacking volumes in developed markets — a real, not hypothetical, risk given Hershey and Nestlé commentary — then normalized margins could reset 200-300bps lower than the 2021-2023 baseline, which would validate something closer to $45-50 fair value, not $36 and not $70. The insider data is useless (all awards, no open-market buys or sells), and I'd flag the "2026-07-01" dates as suspicious — either forward-dated stale data or a data-quality issue worth ignoring.

My verdict: partial dissent from the synthesis. "Overvalued" is directionally defensible but the -41% magnitude is overcooked because it treats a commodity trough as steady-state. I peg fair value at $52-56 assuming margin recovery to ~12% operating margin over 2026-2027, which makes $61 modestly overvalued (~10-15%) rather than dramatically so. The Market Forces call — wait for stabilizing profitability evidence — is the right operational stance. I'd want to see two consecutive quarters of gross margin above 32% before adding, and I'd want cocoa spot below $6,000/ton (currently well above historical norms). The narrative layer is correctly identifying that defensive-multiple support is doing real work here; if that support breaks (rate cuts making staples less attractive relative to duration alternatives, or a broader risk-on rotation), $52 comes into view quickly. Not a short — dividend, brand moat, and mean-reversion optionality make that unattractive — but not a buy at $61 either. The models converge on "overvalued" and I agree with the direction; I just think the price target consensus is anchored too heavily on trailing depressed earnings and underweights the cyclical mean-reversion probability.

GPT Reading
Independent reading · gpt-5.4 · generated 2026-08-11 11:54:16
Verdict Overvalued at $61.22 — unless margins recover quickly toward 2024 levels, fair value looks closer to $48-$52 than today’s defensive-premium price.

Mondelez looks expensive for what the actual earnings and cash flow are doing right now. The market is paying $78.5B for a business that produced $38.5B of 2025 revenue, just $3.55B of operating income, $2.45B of net income, and $3.24B of free cash flow. That is roughly 32x earnings, about 24x free cash flow, and 16.2x EV/EBITDA for a company whose reported revenue CAGR is only 3.4% and whose earnings CAGR is sharply negative. The most important fact in the data is not that revenue is still growing — it is — but that profitability has compressed hard. Gross profit fell from $14.26B in 2024 to $10.94B in 2025 even as revenue rose from $36.44B to $38.54B; gross margin collapsed from 39.1% to 28.4%. Operating income dropped from $6.35B to $3.55B, and net income nearly halved from $4.61B to $2.45B. That is not a small wobble inside a stable staples story; it is a major deterioration in the earnings engine.

The quarterly pattern says the same thing. Over the last five reported quarters, revenue has held between $9.0B and $10.5B, so demand and pricing are not the issue. But net margins have mostly lived in a weak 4.3% to 7.6% band, versus the 18.2% spike in 2024-12 that looks non-recurring relative to the surrounding quarters. On a trailing four-quarter basis using the latest four quarters shown, revenue is about $39.3B and net income only about $2.61B, still around a 6.6% net margin. For a branded snack company with supposed pricing power, that is underwhelming, especially when investors are still granting it a premium multiple more appropriate for a cleaner margin profile. If margins were merely cyclically depressed, you would want clearer evidence of rebound; instead, 2026-03 still printed only 5.6% net margin on $10.08B revenue. The business is proving resilient at the top line, but not proving that incremental dollars are dropping through.

The balance sheet is fine, which is the best part of the story. Debt of $2.69B against $2.20B cash and $25.89B equity means leverage is not the problem, and debt-to-equity of 0.10 is conservative. Operating cash flow of $4.51B also tells you the franchise is real and not in distress. But that strength is already reflected in the valuation. A 3.3% dividend yield helps, yet the 101% payout ratio is a warning that the current dividend is being measured against depressed earnings, not an obviously comfortable profit base. Low leverage gives management room to wait out cost pressure, but it does not make 32x earnings cheap. At $61, investors are effectively capitalizing a hoped-for normalization in margins before the numbers show it.

The best counterargument is that 2025 may be the wrong earnings base. Revenue is still climbing — from $31.5B in 2022 to $36.0B in 2023, $36.4B in 2024, and $38.5B in 2025 — and the company clearly retains shelf strength and pricing power. If the gross-margin collapse from 39.1% to 28.4% is mostly a commodity or mix event rather than a structural reset, then today’s P/E is artificially inflated by trough earnings. On that view, 2024’s $4.61B net income is closer to normal than 2025’s $2.45B, which would make the stock closer to 17x-18x normalized earnings, much more defensible for a global defensive compounder. The current ratio of 0.59 also matters less in staples with steady cash conversion, and the lack of insider selling is at least not a red flag. I take that seriously. But I weigh it differently because the reported quarterly run-rate after 2024 does not yet show a convincing snapback. If normalization were already underway, I would expect more than mid-single-digit net margins by early 2026.

What would change my mind is straightforward: I need to see margin recovery in the numbers, not in the story. If the next two to three quarters can sustain revenue around $10B while restoring gross margin above 33% and net margin back toward 9%-10%, then annualized earnings power moves back into the $3.8B-$4.5B range and the current stock price becomes much easier to defend. Likewise, free cash flow consistently above $4B without balance-sheet strain would support a premium. Absent that, fair value sits materially below the current quote; for a business growing low-single digits with compressed returns, I would want to pay closer to 18x-20x a more cautious $3.0B-$3.5B earnings base, which points more to the high $40s than the low $60s.

Grok Reading
Independent reading · grok-4.5 · generated 2026-08-11 11:54:56
Verdict Overvalued at $61; recovery already priced in—fair value nearer $45–52 until margins prove durable

The numbers tell a story of a franchise that is still selling product but has lost control of its cost structure. Mondelez grew revenue from $36.44B in 2024 to $38.54B in 2025 (+5.8% YoY) and the recent quarterly run-rate is still accelerating—$10.08B in the March 2026 quarter after $10.50B in December—yet net income collapsed from $4.61B to $2.45B and gross profit cratered from $14.26B to $10.94B. Operating margin compressed to 9.2% and net margin to 6.4%; quarterly NI margins have lived in a 4–8% band for five straight periods after an anomalous 18.2% print in late 2024. That is not a soft patch. It is a multi-year cocoa and input-cost shock that has permanently reset the near-term earnings base even while volume-plus-price held up. Free cash flow of $3.24B remains the one bright fundamental, covering the dividend that NI no longer does (payout ratio 101%), and the balance sheet is conservatively levered at 0.10 D/E with only $2.69B of debt. But ROE of 9.5% and ROIC of 10% are mediocre for a supposed quality compounder, and a current ratio of 0.59 flags working-capital tightness underneath the clean leverage optics.

At $61.22 the market is capitalizing this trough at 32.4x earnings, 16.2x EV/EBITDA and roughly 24x trailing FCF. That multiple only makes sense if investors are already underwriting a full snap-back toward the $4.5–5B NI and mid-teens operating margins of 2023–24. Nothing in the last six quarters supports that timing: March 2026 NI was still only $560M on $10B of sales. Revenue CAGR of 3.4% and FCF CAGR of –5.2% over the recent window describe a mature earner whose growth engine is pricing, not unit expansion, and whose cash generation is eroding even before one layers on sugar taxes, health-conscious mix shift, and EM currency noise. The valuation synthesis fair-value cluster around the mid-$30s to high-$40s is directionally correct; the stock is embedding a recovery that has not yet appeared in the P&L.

The strongest counter-argument is that 2025 earnings are an obvious trough and that normalized economics look far cheaper. If cocoa normalizes and gross margin reclaims even 34–36% (still below the prior ~39%), operating profit could re-expand toward $5B+ and the current enterprise value would sit closer to 12–13x mid-cycle EBITDA—perfectly ordinary for a globally diversified snacking portfolio with Oreo, Cadbury and Ritz. FCF of $3.24B already supports the 3.3% yield, the brand moat and emerging-market distribution are real, and defensive staples routinely hold 18–20x earnings through commodity cycles. A buyer who treats $2.45B as non-recurring and anchors on brand durability rather than trailing margins can call $61 a fair entry for a steady compounder. I weigh that case as incomplete: the recovery is multi-year, not automatic, the payout is already stretched, and paying 32x for the hope of reversion while earnings CAGR runs –30% is how defensive multiples become value traps.

I would flip if two consecutive quarters show gross margin back above 33% with organic growth still ≥4%, or if 2026 full-year NI clearly clears $3.8B with FCF re-accelerating above $4B. Absent that evidence, the price remains ahead of the fundamentals.

Big-3 Panel — where each AI stands
Each AI above independently stated a direction (undervalued, fairly valued, or overvalued) and how strongly it believes it (conviction, 0–5). We combine those into a Bull-Bear Index on a 0–10 scale: 5 is neutral, 10 is maximum bullish (undervalued at full conviction), 0 is maximum bearish. We compute the score ourselves with the same arithmetic for every seat — the models never grade their own bullishness — so the three are directly comparable. Δ shows how far each seat sits from the panel average of 1.3; a large Δ marks the dissenting voice, usually the one worth reading.
Claude claude-opus-4-7 2.0
overvalued · conviction 3/5 · Δ +0.7 vs panel · self: 4.0
GPT gpt-5.4 1.0
overvalued · conviction 4/5 · Δ -0.3 vs panel · self: 3.0
Grok grok-4.5 1.0
overvalued · conviction 4/5 · Δ -0.3 vs panel · self: 3.0
Advanced Analysis Forensic deep-dive · separate lenses
Separate reads — Company Quality (is it a great business?), Valuation (is it mispriced?), and General Sentiment (how macro + narrative are pushing it), plus AI Impact (how the AI wave reshapes it), kept deliberately apart · 2026-08-11 13:10:10
Delvantic - Cairn AI
Quality — wait for a dip 7/10
Solid global snacks franchise trading at a full-to-rich price during an unresolved margin shock — a wait, not a buy.
The cruxWhether the 2025 gross margin collapse from 39% to 28% is cyclical cocoa pain that reverses in 2026 or a structural reset of the Oreo/Cadbury pricing model.
Forensic checks Derived mechanically from MDLZ's filed financials — not from the AI lenses
Liquidity & RunwaySelf-Funding
DilutionShare Count Shrinking
Earnings QualityHigh Earnings Quality
The four lensesswitch a tab for its full read — score + evidence
Company Quality
+19
Solid
edge √Σ 98 · risk √Σ 78 · conf 7/10

Mondelez is a mature global snacks/confectionery business throwing off consistent free cash flow ($3.0-3.6B every year 2021-2025) with strong cash conversion (OCF/NI 1.25x, accruals -0.9% of assets, Beneish M -2.4). Per-share discipline is genuine: diluted shares have shrunk from 1.41B to 1.30B (-2.1% CAGR), SBC is a trivial 0.3% of revenue, and buybacks run 16x SBC. Earnings quality mechanics show no red flags. The concern is 2025 operating performance. Revenue kept growing ($28.7B to $38.5B over five years), but gross margin collapsed from 39.1% in 2024 to 28.4% in 2025, operating margin halved from 17.4% to 9.2%, and net income dropped from $4.61B to $2.45B. That is consistent with the well-known cocoa cost shock in the confectionery industry but is a material earnings hit regardless of cause. FCF held up at $3.24B, showing working-capital and cash discipline absorbed some of the P&L pain. Balance sheet is a constraint, not a cushion: $2.20B cash against net debt, and $2.69B short-term debt exceeds liquid cash - refinancing is a routine exposure. Altman Z at 2.3 (grey zone) reflects leverage typical of a stable consumer staple, not distress. Insider tape is neutral - awards and tax withholdings dominate; the only open-market sales are trivial (64 shares total by Stevens).

Strengths 4
m60
Consistent free cash flow
FCF of $3.0-3.6B annually across five years including the 2025 margin shock ($3.24B), with OCF/NI 1.25x and negative accruals - cash earnings quality is strong.
m55
Per-share discipline
Diluted share count shrank from 1.41B to 1.30B (-2.1% CAGR); SBC only 0.3% of revenue and buyback/SBC ratio 1604% - management is a net returner of capital, not a diluter.
m45
Clean earnings-quality mechanics
Beneish M -2.4, accruals -0.9% of assets, no manipulation flags. Reported numbers appear to reflect underlying cash economics.
m30
Durable revenue base
Top-line grew from $28.7B to $38.5B (2021-2025) despite FX, inflation, and cocoa headwinds - global brand portfolio (Oreo, Cadbury, Milka) shows demand durability.
Concerns 2
m70
2025 margin collapse
Gross margin fell from 39.1% to 28.4% and operating margin from 17.4% to 9.2% in a single year; net income dropped 47% to $2.45B. Likely cocoa-driven but the magnitude is severe and pricing power is being tested.
m35
Leverage and near-term debt
Net debt position with only $2.20B liquid cash vs $2.69B short-term debt and Altman Z 2.3 (grey). Not distressed for a staples business but leaves no cushion if operating pressure persists.
This is a fundamentally sound consumer staples franchise going through a real but likely cyclical margin squeeze. The forensics are clean - cash generation is honest, share count is shrinking, no accounting games. What I do not love is the 2025 P&L: an 11-point gross margin drop is not a rounding error, and I want to see whether pricing catches up to input costs in 2026 or whether elasticity is finally biting into the Oreo/Cadbury pricing model. Balance sheet is fine for a staple but not a fortress. Overall a solid, well-run business with a specific active question mark rather than a red flag.
Verify before trusting this (6)
  • Whether 2025 margin compression is cocoa-cost driven and expected to normalize, or reflects structural pricing/elasticity issues
  • Hedging policy and duration on cocoa/dairy inputs
  • Maturity schedule and refinancing terms on the $2.69B short-term debt
  • Organic volume vs price mix in 2025 - is volume declining as prices rose
  • Any goodwill/intangibles impairment given the earnings drop (large staples acquirers often carry heavy goodwill)
  • Geographic exposure and FX translation impact on the 2025 print
Valuation / Mispricing
-70
Rich
edge √Σ 20 · risk √Σ 106 · conf 6/10
Price $61.47 vs composite deserved ~$47 (DCF $52, EPV $37) - roughly 30% overpriced, no margin of safety. attractive below $52.00

The valuation stack points one direction: composite FV of $47.04 (DCF $52.02, EPV floor $37.09) versus a $61.47 price implies the market is paying about a 31% premium to the blended deserved value, and a 71% premium to the earnings-power floor. Earnings quality is high (score 2), so no haircut is warranted there, and the company-quality lens is Solid - both of which support the higher end of the FV range, call it low-$50s, not a price in the low-$60s. Even generously anchoring on the DCF alone, upside is negative from here. What is priced in: a durable global confectioner that navigates the 2025 gross margin compression (down ~11 points) as cyclical, restores pricing power in 2026, and keeps compounding per-share cash flow. That is a plausible base case for a quality staples franchise, but it is not a discounted one - the market has already awarded MDLZ its steady-compounder multiple. There is no visible margin of safety; if input costs stay sticky or elasticity bites, the EPV floor near $37 is what the stock defends, not the current price. Fair verdict: a good business at a full-to-rich price. I would want to see the mid-$50s before this becomes interesting, and the mid-$40s before it becomes attractive.

Cheap signals 1
m20
High earnings quality supports upper FV
Clean cash generation, shrinking share count, no accounting games - this justifies weighting toward DCF ($52) over EPV ($37), but even that generous read leaves the stock modestly overpriced.
Rich / priced-in 4
m68
Price 31% above composite FV
$61.47 vs $47.04 composite fair value implies -23% upside; the signal-adjusted FV of $35.97 puts the gap at -41%. The market is paying up for brand quality that is already well understood.
m55
Well above EPV floor
EPV of $37.09 is 40% below the current price - the earnings-power backstop offers no cushion here, meaning any margin disappointment has room to compress the multiple meaningfully.
m45
Even generous DCF still below price
The friendliest method in the stack, DCF at $52.02, is still ~15% below $61.47. When the bull case in a valuation stack fails to justify the price, there is no discount to harvest.
m40
Margin compression not yet in numbers
The 11-point gross margin drop in 2025 is a real overhang; if pricing does not catch up in 2026, the FV drifts lower rather than the price drifting up to meet it.
This one is straightforward for me: good business, full price. The composite says $47, the friendliest method says $52, and I am being asked to pay $61 - that is not a setup where the odds are on my side. I like the franchise, I respect the cash conversion and the shrinking share count, but I refuse to confuse quality with cheapness. I would start paying attention in the mid-$50s and get genuinely interested near $45 where the DCF has a real cushion and the EPV floor is not far below. Until then, it is a hold-for-owners, wait-for-others.
Verify before trusting this (5)
  • 2026 guidance on pricing actions and gross margin recovery cadence versus cocoa and dairy input costs
  • Segment-level volume elasticity - are emerging markets absorbing price or trading down
  • FX headwind quantification in constant-currency EPS bridge
  • Buyback pace and any incremental capital return that would tighten per-share deserved value
  • Whether the 11-point gross margin drop includes one-off charges vs pure input-cost pass-through lag
General Sentiment
-26
Balanced
tail √Σ 30 · head √Σ 56 · conf 6/10

MDLZ sits in the quietest corner of the tape. With a beta of 0.4 and a Consumer Defensive/Confectioner label, the mildly risk-on regime (score +47, VIX 15.5, S&P near highs) barely reaches this name - risk-on tapes reward high-beta story stocks, not Oreo and Cadbury. So the macro tailwind that is lifting cyclicals and narrative names is essentially neutral-to-slightly-negative here, because rotation into risk pulls flows OUT of defensives like MDLZ. Offsetting that, the 4.65% 10y and stretched 26x market PE keep bond-proxy staples from getting a valuation bid they might otherwise enjoy in a stress tape.

Tailwinds 1
m30
Durable steady-compounder narrative
The story - iconic global brands, pricing power, defensive cash flows - is moderate-intensity but durable, giving MDLZ a stable holder base that resists forced selling even when the tape rotates away.
Headwinds 4
m35
Risk-on rotation away from defensives
A building risk-on regime (6 days, score +47) typically drains flows from low-beta staples into higher-beta names. MDLZ's 0.4 beta means it neither participates in the rally nor benefits from a defensive bid.
m30
Bond-proxy pressure from 4.65% 10y
Staples/confectioners trade partly as bond substitutes; a 4.65% long yield and 0.46 curve keep a cap on the multiple the market is willing to pay for steady cash flows like MDLZ's.
m25
No active catalyst or story flow
Recent news is trivial (an ad-awards panel mention). With low cult coefficient and no narrative catalyst, MDLZ lacks the story-momentum push that is currently lifting more thematic names in this tape.
m20
Momentum stall
3-year deceleration (-7.4pp) and a neutral 3.4% CAGR give the tape no reason to chase; screens and trend-followers are not adding here.
Net, this is a Balanced read leaning very slightly headwind. The macro tape is mildly hostile to exactly this profile - risk-on rotation and high real yields both work against low-beta bond-proxy staples - but the forces are gentle, not decisive, because MDLZ's beta of 0.4 mutes everything. The narrative is durable enough to keep holders in place but too sleepy to attract fresh money, and there is zero news flow to move the tape. I would expect MDLZ to drift and underperform the index modestly until either yields fall or the tape flips risk-off and defensives get bid again.
Verify before trusting this (4)
  • Whether the 10y breaks decisively above 4.75% (would intensify bond-proxy pressure) or rolls back under 4.25% (would give staples a bid)
  • Any VIX spike or growth scare that flips the tape risk-off - MDLZ would suddenly get the defensive bid
  • Analyst target revisions and any sell-side downgrade citing valuation vs low growth
  • GLP-1/health-consciousness narrative flaring back up against confectioners
The market-wide tape + this name's exposure to it (beta / sector / narrative durability). Context on the non-fundamental pressure — not a call on the business or the price. processId: detail-general-sentiment
AI Impact
+20
Mildly favorable - but AI is not what decides this company
opp √Σ 66 · thr √Σ 0 · conf 7/10

Mondelez is a physical-asset, physical-transaction business: the snack must be made, shipped and eaten, so AI reaches it through overheads and decisions, not through the product itself. The favorable channels are real but bounded — creative and media production, trade-promotion optimization, demand forecasting, plant maintenance, and R&D for recipe reformulation under cocoa inflation. The unfavorable channels are structural rather than technical: AI compresses the cost of brand-building and product development for challengers and retailer private label, and if agentic ordering intermediates the grocery basket, the company loses a further slice of the consumer relationship it never owned. The 2025 margin collapse from 39.1% to 28.4% gross is a cocoa-cost event, not an AI event, and should not be read as either; AI's plausible five-year contribution is a few hundred basis points of overhead efficiency in a category where competitors get the same tools, so most of the gain is likely competed into price and promotion.

AI opportunities 4
m52
Underlying Need Persistence
Snacking demand is biological and habitual; AI does not touch it.
m29
Solution Persistence
Branded packaged snacks remain the delivery form; brand premium is the erodible part.
m16
Scarcity Migration
As software becomes abundant, physical capacity, routes and cocoa access become relatively scarcer.
m23
Revenue Unit Durability
The monetized unit is a physical package — structurally immune to software deflation.
AI threats 0

None surfaced.

AI is a modest overhead tailwind here, not a thesis — anyone underwriting Mondelez on AI is answering the wrong question, since cocoa costs and private label decide the next five years. Exposure is genuinely low (27): the scarce assets are plants, routes and cocoa access, and the monetized unit is a physical pack that software deflation cannot compress. The one AI channel that could matter to the numbers is formulation science aimed at cocoa intensity — watch gross margin recovery off the 28.4% 2025 trough alongside reformulated chocolate launches, because that is where cheap intelligence would actually show up. The offsetting risk to track early is AI-shortened private-label development cycles and any agentic grocery reordering that prices Oreo against store brand on cost per gram; if branded price gaps start narrowing under promotion, the mild 54 position slides toward the 39 bear.
Verify before trusting this (8)
  • SG&A ratio trajectory
  • trade promotion efficiency commentary
  • gross margin recovery cadence
  • cocoa sourcing cost vs peers
  • capex on capacity and automation
  • distribution reach in emerging markets
  • global snacking volume growth
  • chocolate consumption per capita trends
The structural effect of the AI wave on this specific business over the next ~5 years — demand, cost leverage, moat, barriers to entry, position in the AI stack. The reality beneath the AI story, not the story's market pressure (General Sentiment owns that) — and not a call on the business today or the price.
Growth Outlook
not run

This lens hasn't been run for this ticker yet.

The forward growth verdict — is the business itself likely to grow (next 2 quarters / year 1 / years 2–3), judged against its category and against printed expectations. The full horizon ladder + creme renders on the Growth Outlook card above. Not a call on the price (Valuation owns that) or the tape (Sentiment owns that).
Please log in to view trade setups
The Augustus trade-setup read is a members feature.
Log in
Lenses kept deliberately separate — Company Quality (price-agnostic), Valuation (price-conditional), General Sentiment (non-fundamental macro/narrative pressure), AI Impact (structural ~5yr AI exposure), and Growth Outlook (the forward growth verdict). The scores are not blended. Filing-level items (convertibles, lock-ups, customer concentration) are v2 — see each lens's "verify."
Price Prediction
Unavailable View weakness chain →

Prediction unavailable. valuation-synthesis has no result for MDLZ — the prediction needs its fair-value anchors.

Community AI Feedback
No community reviews yet for MDLZ. Be the first — hit How to Contribute, have any AI review this page, and paste its take back here.
My Notes personal — only you see this
v1.1.562 · 9b2927c4 · 2026-08-22 16:52:06