For AI assistants & researchers — machine-readable summary of this page
What this page is: Delvantic's full research page for Vital Farms Inc. (VITL) — 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 -27 (−100…+100 Quality+Value blend) · Quality 24 · Value -69 · Sentiment -39 (timing only, not weighted) · Composite fair value $6.24 vs $12.73 at analysis
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 capextended-analysis— the core: three AI lens reads with findings, scores, and the analyst memofuture-predictions— our forward price-band predictionsmarket-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.
Vital Farms Inc.
VITL NASDAQVital Farms Inc. is a food company specializing in ethically sourced, pasture-raised products. It packages, markets, and distributes shell eggs, butter, ghee, hard-boiled eggs, and liquid whole eggs under the Vital Farms and RedHill Farms brands. The company partners with a network of over 425 family-owned farms across the United States, ensuring animals have outdoor access in line with its commitment to Conscious Capitalism, which emphasizes long-term benefits for farmers, suppliers, customers, communities, the environment, employees, and stockholders. Vital Farms products are sold through retail stores and foodservice channels, including third-party distributors, direct to retailers, and commercial and non-commercial operators nationwide. Operating in the consumer defensive sector within farm products, it focuses on pasture-raised eggs and butter as core offerings. Founded in 2007 and headquartered in Austin, Texas, Vital Farms Inc. stands as a certified B Corporation dedicated to ethical food production.
Price Overview
Price History (1 Year)
Revenue & Net Income Trend
| Period | Revenue | Net Income | Net Margin | YoY/QoQ |
|---|
Key Metrics
EPS (Diluted): 1.44
Total Equity: $351.26M
Shares: 46,019,607
Total Debt: $0.00
Cash: $48.83M
EBITDA: $97.63M
Total Debt: $0.00
Cash: $48.83M
Revenue: $759.44M
Revenue: $759.44M
Revenue: $759.44M
Total Equity: $351.26M
Tax Rate: 27.4%
Equity: $351.26M
Total Debt: $0.00
Cash: $48.83M
Current Liabilities: $121.58M
Long-Term Debt: $0.00
Total Debt: $0.00
Total Equity: $351.26M
Shares: 46,019,607
Shares: 46,019,607
CapEx: -$81.95M
Shares: 46,019,607
Stock Price: $12.73
Net Income: $66.28M
Industry Benchmarks
Income Statement (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 2, 2026 1:43pm (21d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $260.9M | $362.1M | $471.9M | $606.3M | $759.4M |
| Cost of Revenue | $178.0M | $252.6M | $309.5M | $376.4M | $473.8M |
| Gross Profit | $82.9M | $109.4M | $162.3M | $229.9M | $285.7M |
| Operating Expenses | $82.8M | $107.3M | $129.1M | $166.4M | $197.3M |
| Operating Income | $52,000 | $2.1M | $33.3M | $63.6M | $88.4M |
| Net Income | $2.4M | $1.3M | $25.6M | $53.4M | $66.3M |
| EBITDA | $3.6M | $7.5M | $41.2M | $72.8M | $97.6M |
| EPS | $0.06 | $0.03 | $0.62 | $1.25 | $1.49 |
| EPS (Diluted) | $0.06 | $0.03 | $0.59 | $1.18 | $1.44 |
Balance Sheet (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 2, 2026 1:26pm (21d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cash & Equivalents | $31.0M | $12.9M | $84.1M | $150.6M | $48.8M |
| Total Current Assets | $141.2M | $149.6M | $195.5M | $246.0M | $262.6M |
| Total Assets | $189.9M | $214.7M | $275.2M | $359.3M | $518.7M |
| Current Liabilities | $38.0M | $47.7M | $65.2M | $78.5M | $121.6M |
| Long-Term Debt | — | — | — | — | — |
| Total Liabilities | $38.2M | $56.3M | $82.5M | $90.0M | $167.5M |
| Total Equity | $151.5M | $158.3M | $192.7M | $269.3M | $351.3M |
| Retained Earnings | $2.7M | $4.2M | $29.7M | $83.1M | $149.4M |
Cash Flow (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 2, 2026 1:43pm (21d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash Flow | $16.3M | -$8.1M | $50.9M | $64.8M | $33.7M |
| Capital Expenditure | -$16.7M | -$10.5M | -$11.5M | -$28.6M | -$82.0M |
| Free Cash Flow | $-386,000 | -$18.6M | $39.4M | $36.2M | -$48.2M |
| Acquisitions (net) | — | — | — | — | — |
| Net Debt Issued / (Repaid) | — | — | — | — | — |
| Dividends Paid | — | — | — | — | — |
| Stock Buybacks | — | — | — | — | — |
| Net Change in Cash | $1.4M | -$18.1M | $71.2M | $66.5M | -$101.8M |
Growth Trends (YoY %)
Last updated: Aug 2, 2026 1:43pm (21d ago)| Metric | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | +38.8% | +30.3% | +28.5% | +25.3% |
| Gross Profit Growth | +32.0% | +48.3% | +41.6% | +24.2% |
| Operating Income Growth | +3,946.2% | +1,480.5% | +91.1% | +39.1% |
| Net Income Growth | -48.5% | +1,943.6% | +108.8% | +24.2% |
| EBITDA Growth | +110.1% | +445.8% | +76.8% | +34.1% |
Deep Analysis
Risk : Reward — if the last quarter repeats
Live · as of 2026-08-19 11:15Recovery pays +372%; another quarter like the worst recent one costs 100%. Ratio 3.7:1.
| Case | Growth | Margin | Fair value | vs price ($12.73) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bull — recovery | +20% | 25.5% | $60.09 | +372% |
| Base — stabilizes | +13% | 22.2% | $42.59 | +235% |
| Bear — keeps slipping | +7% | 18.9% | $29.25 | +130% |
| Stress — last quarter repeats | -10% | 0.0% | $0.01 | -100% |
Narrative Economics
market-narrative step).
Claude Reading
The raw numbers tell a specific and troubling story that the "mature earner overvalued" framing partially misses. Revenue trajectory: $147M → $145M → $166M → $162M → $185M → $199M → $214M → $187M over eight quarters. The March 2026 quarter is the first sequential decline in a year AND the first negative net income print in the visible history (-$1.5M vs $16.9M in the year-ago quarter). Net margin collapsed from 10.4% to -0.8% year-over-year on rev that still grew 15.4%. That's not a mature earner cruising — that's either a one-time cost event, avian flu / input shock, or the beginning of the margin compression the bears warned about. The synthesis model is anchoring on FY2025 ($759M rev, $66M NI, 8.8x P/E) as if it's the run-rate; the latest quarter says it isn't.
The $7.31 DCF fair value looks too aggressive on the downside. FY2025 delivered $88M operating income and $66M net income on $759M revenue; even haircutting to a normalized 7% net margin on $800M implies $56M earnings, which at a modest 12x is $672M market cap or ~$15.50/share — above the current $12.73. The synthesis flags "poor cash flow quality" (OCF $34M vs NI $66M, FCF -$48M on $82M capex) — that's legitimate, but the capex is the story: VITL is building the Egg Central Station expansion, which is growth investment, not maintenance. Capex-heavy scale-out phases routinely produce ugly FCF in year-of-build; the question is whether the incremental capacity gets absorbed. If Q1 2026's revenue softness is demand-side rather than supply-side, the capex was mistimed and the bear case tightens. If it's input-cost driven (feed, avian flu culls), it normalizes.
Where I part ways with the models: the Narrative layer's "74% premium is pure narrative" framing is lazy. VITL has posted 26.9% revenue CAGR and 61% earnings CAGR over five years with zero debt, $48.8M cash, 21.2% ROIC, and 37.6% gross margin — those aren't commodity-egg-producer numbers, those are branded-CPG numbers. The 8.8x P/E and 0.77x P/S already price in significant skepticism; this is not a story stock trading at 40x sales. Meanwhile, the insider signal is being underweighted: three separate P-Purchases (open-market buys) in mid-May 2026, right after the weak Q1 print, is exactly the pattern you want to see — insiders leaning in on the drawdown. The June 10 awards are grants, ignore them, but the purchases are real. A contrarian would argue the market has already done the de-rating (76% off highs, 8.8x earnings) and the Q1 miss is the capitulation point, not the start of a longer slide.
The honest read: I partially dissent from the "overvalued, fair value $7.31" synthesis. The DCF is likely too punitive on capex normalization and too pessimistic on brand equity in a category where VITL has demonstrably taken share (revenue tripled 2021→2025 in a flat egg category). But I also can't wave away the Q1 2026 print — a swing from +10.4% to -0.8% net margin on similar revenue base is a real signal, not noise, and until Q2 clarifies whether it's input-cost transient or structural, committing capital aggressively is premature. Fair value is probably $14-18 on normalized 6-8% net margins and low-double-digit growth, meaning the stock is roughly fairly valued to modestly undervalued at $12.73 — not the -43% overvaluation the composite suggests, nor a screaming buy. The insider buying tilts me slightly bullish; the margin collapse tilts me back to neutral. Starter position at best, sized to add materially only if Q2 confirms margins recovering above 5% and revenue re-accelerates sequentially.
GPT Reading
What stands out is how cheap Vital Farms looks on earnings and enterprise value versus how messy it looks on cash flow if you stop at one line item. On the income statement, this is not a broken premium-food story. Revenue has scaled from $260.9M in 2021 to $759.4M in 2025, a near tripling in four years, while net income moved from $2.4M to $66.3M. Even more important, this wasn’t achieved with leverage: debt is zero, cash is $48.8M, equity is $351.3M, and annual ROIC is 21.2%. At $0.55B market cap, investors are paying just 0.77x sales, 8.8x earnings, and 5.1x EV/EBITDA for a branded food company still growing revenue 25% year over year. That is unusually low unless margins are about to collapse structurally, and the raw numbers do not yet show that.
The quarter that will scare screens is the most recent one: revenue up to $187.2M but net income slipping to -$1.5M from $16.9M a year earlier. I do not ignore that; I just think the market is over-extrapolating a single weak quarter against a much stronger multi-year arc. The four quarters of 2025 produced $759.4M of revenue and $66.3M of net income, with operating margin at 11.6% and net margin 8.7%, versus just 0.6% net margin in 2022. Quarterly revenue also kept climbing through 2025 from $162.2M to $213.6M before the seasonal step-down into the March quarter. If this were a demand collapse, I would expect more than one quarter of pressure and weaker annual profitability. Instead, I see a company that has already proven it can make real money in a category many assume is permanently commodity-like.
The biggest disconnect with the bearish valuation output is free cash flow. Yes, reported FCF was -$48.2M on operating cash flow of $33.7M because capex was a very large $82.0M. But that is not evidence that earnings are fake; it is evidence that the company is building. Against $88.4M of operating income and $66.3M of net income, the issue is capital intensity in a growth phase, not an inability to convert demand into profit. A zero-debt balance sheet gives them room to absorb that investment cycle. If capex normalizes materially below 2025’s $82.0M while revenue remains anywhere near a 15-20% trajectory, the current valuation will look plainly too low. For a business with gross margin of 37.6% and operating margin over 11%, a sub-1x sales multiple prices in much harsher economics than they have actually delivered.
The best bear case is straightforward and credible: this may be peak-margin accounting on top of a fragile premium egg demand story. The latest quarter’s swing from +10.4% net margin to -0.8% shows how fast this model can turn when costs move or pricing lags. Operating cash flow of $33.7M versus net income of $66.3M is not great, and if elevated capex is not temporary but required to sustain growth, then the low multiples are less cheap than they look. A skeptic would also point to decelerating quarterly revenue growth versus the earlier scaling years, the fact that this is still ultimately an agricultural protein product, and the possibility that private label or retailer bargaining compresses gross margin from 37.6% back toward more ordinary food-company levels. If 2025 was the high-water mark and 2026 settles closer to breakeven in the weak quarters, then 8.8x earnings is a value trap because “E” was overstated by a favorable period.
What would change my mind is not a narrative debate about ethical food; it is the next few numbers. If the next two quarters fail to recover from the March loss — specifically, if revenue growth drops below 15% and net margin stays under 5% in the June and September quarters — then I would conclude 2025 profitability was cyclical rather than durable. Likewise, if operating cash flow again materially trails earnings while capex remains near $80M annualized, the cheap multiple deserves to stay cheap. But if Vital Farms posts something like $780M-$820M of annualized revenue power with net income still above $50M and capex starts easing, then a rerating toward even 12-14x earnings or around 1.0x sales would support a stock in the mid-to-high teens rather than $12.73.
Grok Reading
The numbers tell a story of a genuine growth compounder that the market has abandoned at the first sign of trouble. Vital Farms scaled revenue from $261M in 2021 to $759M in 2025 — a 27% CAGR — while net income exploded from $2.4M to $66.3M and operating margin expanded from roughly break-even to 11.6%. Trailing multiples of 8.8x earnings, 0.77x sales, and 5.1x EV/EBITDA with zero debt and $49M cash are not the pricing of a durable branded CPG franchise growing mid-twenties; they are distressed multiples. ROIC of 21% and ROE of 19% confirm the unit economics work. The free-cash-flow hole (−$48M) is almost entirely explained by $82M of capex against $34M of operating cash flow — classic capacity build, not earnings that fail to convert. Recent insider open-market purchases in May 2026 add a modest confirmatory signal that management sees value here.
What stands out as the real fracture is the margin trajectory and the March 2026 quarter. Net margin compressed every sequential quarter through 2025 — 10.4% to 9% to 8.3% to 7.6% — before flipping to a −0.8% loss on $187M of revenue. That is a $18M year-over-year swing in net income despite 15% revenue growth versus the year-ago quarter. Revenue also decelerated sequentially from the $214M December peak, and the secondary signals correctly flag decelerating quarterly trends plus poor FCF quality. The valuation engine’s $7.31 fair value and “overvalued” call lean hard on this cash-flow quality flag and on an assumption that the growth story is already over. I weigh it differently: the engine is treating a temporary investment-and-input-cost squeeze in a zero-debt, high-ROIC brand as a permanent re-rating to a no-growth commodity processor. At 5x EV/EBITDA the market has already priced in a severe and lasting earnings collapse that the multi-year operating history does not yet justify.
The strongest opposing case is straightforward and quantitative. Three independent valuation methods converge near $7.30, implying 40%+ downside; cash conversion is objectively poor; the latest quarter produced the first loss in the entire reported series while revenue growth slowed; gross margin durability in a category exposed to feed costs and private-label competition remains unproven at scale; and the narrative premium the engine identifies (mission-driven ethical branding) has moderate durability at best. A smart bear argues that the 76% drawdown from highs was rational discovery that premium pasture-raised eggs hit a demand or pricing ceiling, and that 8.8x trailing earnings is a trap multiple on peak, non-recurring profitability. I acknowledge the margin compression is the single most important data series and that another two quarters like March 2026 would validate the $7 handle. I simply refuse to anchor a terminal multiple on one bad print and a capex spike when the five-year evidence shows operating leverage and brand pricing power, and when the balance sheet carries no financial risk.
What flips the verdict is concrete: two consecutive quarters of net margins back above 7% with revenue growth holding above 15% would confirm the March loss was noise and push me to high-conviction undervalued; conversely, full-year 2026 net income falling below $40M or another quarter of negative free cash flow without clear capacity coming online would force acceptance that the multiple compression is earned and the stock belongs closer to the model’s $7–8 zone.
Big-3 Panel — where each AI stands
Advanced Analysis Forensic deep-dive · separate lenses
Vital Farms shows a genuinely impressive fundamental trajectory: revenue compounded from $260.9M (2021) to $759.4M (2025), gross margin expanded from 31.8% to 37.6%, operating margin went from ~0% to 11.6%, and net income scaled from $2.4M to $66.3M. Diluted share count went from 43.3M to 46.0M (1.5% CAGR) with SBC only 1.6% of revenue — per-share value is being protected. Altman Z of 4.71 and $48.8M net cash (no debt drag) put survival off the table despite the small absolute cash pile.
Verify before trusting this (5)
- 2025 10-K: reconcile $66.3M NI vs -$48.2M FCF — how much is capex (new processing facility?) vs working capital build vs inventory?
- Customer concentration — Whole Foods / Kroger / Target share of revenue and any contract renewals
- Egg supply / farmer network economics — are farmer payments and input costs pressuring gross margin going forward?
- Beneish components: DSRI and TATA drivers — is receivables growth outpacing sales?
- Capex guidance and whether the FCF drag is a discrete build-year or ongoing
The e2e work triangulates to a $7.35 composite fair value (DCF $5.79, anchored PE $6.42, EPV floor $11.38), implying about -43% downside from $12.73. Even the most generous method here, the EPV floor at $11.38, sits below the market price - meaning the market is paying for growth well beyond the earnings power the business has already demonstrated. The Company-Quality lens rightly flags this as a legitimately good operator (24 score, rising margins, minimal dilution, insider buying), which supports leaning toward the higher end of the fair-value range, but it does not close a 70%+ gap. What is priced in: continued rapid revenue growth, sustained ~11-12% operating margins, and a resolution of the 2025 FCF reversal ($66M NI vs -$48M FCF) as a working-capital or capex timing issue rather than structural. If any of those slip - private label pressure, egg cost normalization, or capex staying elevated - the anchored PE case ($6.42) becomes the reference point fast. Fairly-valued would require the price to sit near the EPV floor ($11.38) with a modest quality premium; today's $12.73 is past that.
Verify before trusting this (5)
- Whether the 2025 FCF gap is working-capital/inventory build or structural capex - reconcile from the cash flow statement
- Forward guidance on operating margin sustainability at 11-12% as scale grows
- Private-label share trends in pasture-raised eggs at Kroger, Whole Foods, Target
- Whether insider buying continued past May 2026 or was a one-off
- Capex intensity for new farm network build-out and payback assumptions
The macro tape is broadly neutral-to-mildly-constructive (VIX 16, S&P near highs), so market beta (1.07) is not itself a hard headwind here. But the stock-specific narrative pressure is negative: the May guidance-driven 20% gap-down is still the anchoring event on the tape, and there has been no fresh catalyst to rebuild the 'pasture-raised secular story' after management admitted the full-year outlook was softer than hoped. That kind of narrative wound in a mission-driven-bet archetype takes quarters to heal. Newsflow is unhelpful in a subtle way. The only fresh headline is M&A chatter around Cal-Maine and Tyson, which reframes the egg category as a commodity consolidation play, not a premium-brand growth story. That is exactly the wrong frame for VITL's bull case and quietly reinforces the bear read that ethical-eggs is a niche inside a commodity aisle. Analyst tone and cult intensity are only medium, so there is no fanbase bid to offset drift. Net: a moderate, persistent headwind pushing the stock sideways-to-down until a clean print resets the narrative.
Verify before trusting this (4)
- Next quarterly print - does management reaffirm or raise the guide that caused the May gap
- Any sell-side target revisions post-Q2 that would signal analyst tone shifting
- Whether egg-category M&A headlines evolve toward premium/branded deals (would flip narrative) or stay commodity-scale focused
- Sector rotation into defensive consumer staples if VIX ticks up - VITL could catch a bid despite story weakness
This lens hasn't been run for this ticker yet.