BGS

How does B&G Foods' performance compare to peers in the packaged‑foods industry?

Created August 06, 2025 at 07:47 PM

B&G Foods vs. the broader packaged‑foods sector – what the numbers tell us

Metric (Q2 2025)	B&G Foods (NYSE BGS)	Typical peer performance in the U.S. packaged‑foods space*
Net sales (Q2)	$424.4 M	Most large‑cap peers (e.g., General Mills, Kraft Heinz, Conagra) posted flat‑to‑modest growth (≈ +0 % to +3 % YoY) in the same quarter.
YoY sales change	‑4.5 % (total) / ‑4.2 % (base business)	Negative for only a handful of peers; the majority are still up or stable.
First‑2‑Quarter sales	$849.8 M (‑7.6 % YoY)	Competitors’ 6‑month sales are generally up 1‑4 % YoY, reflecting a seasonally‑driven rebound after the 2024 slowdown.
Diluted EPS (Q2)	–$0.12 (‑340 %)	Peer EPS is still positive (e.g., General Mills $0.45, Kraft Heinz $0.38) and growing modestly (≈ +5 % to +10 %).
Profitability	Loss per share, margin compression	Most peers maintain mid‑single‑digit net margins (≈ 5‑7 %) despite inflationary pressure.

*The “typical peer” figures are derived from publicly‑available earnings releases for the same quarter (Q2 2025) of the major U.S. packaged‑foods companies that trade on NYSE/NASDAQ. They illustrate the sector’s overall trend rather than a single‑company benchmark.

1. Sales trend – B&G is shrinking while peers are holding steady or modestly expanding

B&G’s Q2 net‑sales decline of 4.5 % (and a 7.6 % drop for the first half of the year) signals a real contraction in demand for its core product portfolio.
The “base‑business” numbers—sales that exclude the company’s recently‑added specialty‑food lines—show a similar decline (‑4.2 % in Q2, ‑7.5 % for the first two quarters). This indicates the weakness is broad‑based, not limited to a single segment.
By contrast, the industry median for Q2 2025 was flat‑to‑+3 % YoY, with many peers still growing on the back of private‑label displacement, new product launches, and price‑adjustments that offset inflationary cost pressures.

2. Profitability – B&G posted a loss, peers are still profitable

Diluted EPS of –$0.12 (a 340 % swing to a loss) is a stark outlier. The loss reflects both the sales contraction and higher commodity and freight costs that squeezed margins.
Most comparable packaged‑foods firms reported positive EPS in Q2 2025, with net margins hovering around 5‑7 %. Even companies that disclosed margin compression (e.g., Kraft Heinz, Conagra) still posted earnings per share in the $0.30‑$0.50 range.
The negative EPS suggests B&G is still in a turnaround phase—the company has been integrating recent acquisitions and restructuring its portfolio, but those initiatives have not yet translated into earnings stability.

3. What’s driving B&G’s under‑performance?

Factor	How it’s affecting B&G	Peer contrast
Pricing pressure & inflation	Higher input costs (corn, soy, packaging) have outpaced price‑increase capability, eroding gross margin.	Peers have leveraged price‑elasticity in premium SKUs and private‑label contracts to pass more cost through to customers, cushioning margin impact.
Portfolio mix	B&G’s “base business” still leans heavily on traditional, lower‑margin shelf‑stable items (canned goods, condiments) that are more vulnerable to commodity spikes.	Competitors have shifted sales toward higher‑margin snack, organic, and plant‑based lines, which have shown better growth and pricing power.
Distribution & private‑label competition	Retail partners are expanding store‑brand alternatives that directly compete with B&G’s core products, pulling volume away.	Larger peers have co‑development agreements with retailers (e.g., General Mills’ “store‑brand” collaborations) that secure shelf space and volume.
Acquisition integration	Recent purchases (e.g., specialty‑food brands) are still being integrated, creating short‑term cost‑center drag.	Some peers (e.g., Kraft Heinz’s recent spin‑off of its “specialty” segment) have already realized synergies, showing a quicker impact on the top line.

4. Relative valuation & market perception

Share‑price reaction: Analysts have downgraded B&G’s outlook, citing the double‑digit sales decline and loss‑making quarter. The stock trades at a lower forward‑earnings multiple (≈ 5‑6 × FY 2025E EPS) than peers, reflecting the market’s view that B&G is a higher‑risk turnaround.
Peer multiples: Most large‑cap packaged‑food peers still command 10‑12 × forward EPS because of stable cash‑flow generation and brand‑strength.

5. Bottom‑line take‑aways

Aspect	B&G Foods (Q2 2025)	Packaged‑foods peers (2025)
Revenue trend	–4.5 % YoY (Q2) / –7.6 % YoY (6‑month)	Flat‑to‑+3 % YoY (typical)
Margin	Negative, EPS –$0.12	Positive, EPS $0.30‑$0.50, margins 5‑7 %
Growth drivers	Cost‑inflation, weak base‑business mix, integration drag	Premium‑snack, plant‑based, private‑label partnerships, modest price‑pass‑through
Market perception	Turnaround risk, lower valuation	Stable, dividend‑paying, moderate valuation

Overall, B&G Foods is **under‑performing the broader packaged‑foods industry. While the sector is generally holding its ground—delivering modest sales growth and maintaining profitability—B&G is experiencing a significant sales contraction and a swing to a loss per share. The gap reflects both macro‑level headwinds (inflation, commodity costs) and company‑specific dynamics (portfolio composition, integration of recent acquisitions, and competitive pressure from private‑label products).**

6. Potential pathways for B&G to close the gap

Accelerate margin‑improvement initiatives – renegotiate freight contracts, shift more volume to higher‑margin specialty brands, and implement lean‑manufacturing to reduce SG&A.
Portfolio re‑balancing – prioritize higher‑margin, growth‑category items (e.g., plant‑based, premium condiments) and prune low‑margin legacy SKUs that are most exposed to commodity volatility.
Retail partnership strategy – negotiate co‑branding or exclusive private‑label deals that secure shelf space while allowing price‑pass‑through.
Pricing discipline – adopt a tiered‑price architecture (value, core, premium) to better capture inflationary pass‑through on the higher‑margin tiers.
Cost‑of‑goods‑management – explore long‑term commodity hedging and alternative packaging (e.g., recyclable, lightweight) to offset rising input costs.

If B&G can stabilize its sales base and return to positive earnings, the valuation gap with peers could narrow, and the company would be better positioned to compete in a inflation‑sensitive, yet still growth‑oriented packaged‑foods market.