Snap Inc.

Company: Snap Inc

Ticker: NYSE:SNAP

Sector: Internet Content & Information / Communication Services

Key Narrative: Snap Inc. was once the dominant social media for Gen-Z users’ communication; now it's competing against TikTok and Instagram and seemingly losing, with the company being consistently unprofitable and losing market share.

Snap is a speculative investment. The company does have ambitious long-term goals in places like creator monetization and augmented reality, however, it continues to struggle with profitability, user growth, and monetization efficiency—especially compared to sites like TikTok and Meta, two giants of the market.
Snap is high-risk due to the fact that it is consistently unprofitable, faces big competition in its sector, and has uncertain returns from its long-term investments in augmented reality and other hardware.
Snap Inc. looks more like a lesson in crowd psychology than a disciplined investment. Its share price has swung up and down in the past on hype cycles. While there is potential in Snap with its hold on Gen-Z as one of the leading messaging apps, to bet on Snap would be to bet on beliefs in live tech, AR, and camera-centered shopping, rather than shown progress toward profitability and/or market leadership.

Snapchat is genuinely embedded in Gen-Z; however, its grip is not as firm as it once was. The reason why it's genuinely embedded is because "snapping" is still quite popular, and so is simply messaging on the app. Its filters are also a fun way to express oneself, and of course its privacy and "you had to be there" vibe is still very appealing. However, other social media platforms like Instagram and TikTok have overtaken Snapchat in appeal with their emphasis on short-form content creation. While Snapchat is genuinely embedded in our generation’s lifestyle and its usage is real, it's not loud. It's become the quiet center of Gen-Z communication, while Instagram and TikTok have become the loud center of Gen-Z culture. This also makes Snapchat less profitable because the money ultimately comes from digital advertising, and it's hard to advertise within messaging.
Snap does align with Gen-Z values on privacy and mental health; however, it is a follower, not a leader, on sustainability and ethics and corporate responsibility. While Snapchat does support mental health, there is a lack of commitment to other topics like climate change or ethical sourcing.
Snapchat's demand is real, not manufactured, and this is evident with its streak culture, messaging infrastructure, and low influencer presence. Ultimately, the demand does come from users wanting to stay connected. That does create user retention; however, it doesn't create profitability because ultimately Snapchat doesn’t make profit with messaging.

In terms of growth rate, Snapchat's growth has been volatile and difficult in the past few years. During COVID, Snapchat exploded with ad surges and increased Gen-Z engagement; however, now Snapchat's growth is dependent on small product tweaks, international expansion, and cost-cutting. Snap's growth path currently looks unsustainable. Right now, it looks as if Snapchat is on the defensive, meaning it is more reactive to external factors like Apple's privacy changes and competition from other social media platforms rather than leading the sector it's in.
Snapchat's business model is poor with its thin margins and its big dependence on the digital ad ecosystem, and it struggles to convert scale into sustainable profits. Another big problem is Snap's reliance on high-cost infrastructure and its inability to monetize its platform. Also importantly, Snapchat does lack pricing power in the digital ad market, meaning that the company lacks the ability to set prices for its services at levels that maximize profitability. Meanwhile, companies like Meta and Google do control much of the audience and can maximize their profits. Although Snapchat is growing rapidly, it's ultimately inefficient at creating profits out of revenue. And all of these previously listed factors lead to a situation where Snapchat is burning more capital than it's getting.
Snap also does not have a strong balance sheet, therefore limiting its ability to withstand an economic downturn. This, coupled with Snap's heavy reliance on investor optimism, means that if an economic downturn occurs, Snap may struggle—especially if investor sentiment changes. Also, its high costs in infrastructure and research and development make it even more at risk during a period of financial instability. Essentially, Snap’s balance sheet is more dependent on investor optimism than actually having solid and independent financial health.

Metrics

Metric. Snap Inc. META TikTok
Revenue Growth (YoY). 16% in 2024 21.94% in Q1 2025 42.8% in 2024
Gross Margin 56.9% in 2024 81.7% in 2024 21% in 2024
Price-to-Sales Ratio 4.01 in 2024 9.15 in 2024 Data not available

Snap did grow faster than prior years in 2025 but did so at a smaller rate than Meta or TikTok, showing how increasingly unpopular Snap is becoming compared to those companies. Snap's gross margin, though it improved, still trails Meta by a very wide margin and reflects the high costs. The price-to-sales ratio displays the growing lack of confidence from investors in Snapchat’s ability to monetize its user base. Snapchat was also unprofitable in 2025, as it ultimately lost about $698 million in comparison to its competitors that gained billions. Overall, while Snapchat is growing, it is doing so with persistent losses, thin margins, and a poor business model.

Snap is benefiting from broader macro trends including the shift to digital advertising, the growing creator economy, and the short-form content boom. However, Snap has and currently is struggling too monetize these tailwinds as well as their competitors have. This is most likely due to their smaller scale and weaker data infrastructure.
Snapchat does have a moat, though it is a little smaller than a number of their competitors. Its biggest advantage is that it has a highly engaged Gen-Z user base and a number of features like its ephemeral chats and images, its private communication, and its augmented reality development. The issue is that a lot of these features are being replicated by competitors, like Instagram Stories and TikTok effects, for example. Snap’s only moat is essentially its cultural relevance in the messaging world and its product innovation listed prior. The issue is that without strong monetization, Snap is vulnerable to companies with more money like Meta and TikTok.
Snap currently has strong brand stickiness to Gen-Z. It is probably one of the most used platforms of the generation, with some of its features like chats, snaps, and stories being ingrained in our generation’s daily routines. And unlike other social media platforms, which are more performative, Snap has become essentially a messaging app, which has created habitual use and strong loyalty. However, this loyalty and popularity haven't resulted in much monetization. Snap's long-term relevance will depend on whether it can come up with innovative ideas that appeal to youth culture and actually generate revenue from these ideas—something it has struggled to do in the past.

Snap is currently more hype than fundamentals. While the company does have a strong cultural connection and a loyal Gen-Z user base, its valuation isn’t supported by its continuous unprofitability. Snap posted significant losses in 2024 ($698 million), and though its gross margins have improved, they are far behind its biggest competitor, Meta. Its price-to-sales ratio being 4.1 does suggest there is some investor optimism, but it's not close to higher-growth stocks, meaning that investors are skeptical that Snap can become profitable and efficient. Snap currently seems to be trading more on hope of improvement rather than showing actual financial results.
Over the last year, there has been a lot of significant insider selling at Snap Inc. Executives—CEO Evan Spiegel, CTO Robert Murphy, CFO Derek Andersen, and General Counsel Michael J. O'Sullivan—have all sold millions in shares. This pattern of insider selling may display a lack of confidence in the company’s future.

Snap currently looks like a speculative momentum play at the moment—unless you think that they can actually monetize their innovation, which I don't think they can. On the flipside, Snap is a very risky investment because currently they have a very poor business model with very thin margins, big infrastructure and research and development spending, and ultimately can't make money. So essentially, they spend too much and make far too little. Betting on Snap, especially due to those reasons listed above, is highly risky.
From a disciplined investment strategy standpoint, this stock fits into the high-risk portion of a broad portfolio. The stock does have potential with its innovation and loyal user base; however, that’s offset by its current state: limited pricing power, losses, and insider selling. A smart investor would only buy Snap if they can tolerate loss and believe in its long-term upside. Snap ultimately isn't a stock to rely on.
Personally, I wouldn’t invest in Snapchat—mainly due to the fact that the current fundamentals don’t quite support a long-term position.
Lastly, A catalyst to watch out for is Snap's Q2 2025 report, which could provide further insights into Snap’s financial trajectory.

ON Holding AG

Company: On Holding AG (ONON)
Ticker: NYSE: ONON
Sector: Athletic Apparel & Footwear
Key Narrative: This company is a revolutionary footwear and athletic apparel company.
This stock is a growth stock.
The risk level is low—the probability of major loss over a long period of time is unlikely, especially with the growth that is expected.
This stock is a disciplined investment with long-term value.

This brand is gaining popularity with Gen-Z, specifically in the running world. It's increasingly competing with larger and more historic athletic companies like Nike and Adidas.
The company's values of sustainability align with Gen-Z’s growing belief in the importance of sustainability in products.
On Running’s product is loved by its users due to their comfort and style—specifically among older Gen-Z, who show a trend of wanting to adopt new fitness trends. Those who adopted it stayed because of the quality of the product.

The company's growth rate is sustainable; however, it is currently seen as a moderate buy among Wall Street analysts due to its expected growth. It's not expected to repeat the same level of growth it had last year.
On’s business model is made up of innovation, a strong brand, and direct-to-consumer expansion. This model is efficient—particularly due to the technological developments in its product, especially with its CloudTec cushioning technology. Its direct-to-consumer expansion also allows the company to profit more by decreasing its dependency on third-party retailers.
On does have enough cash to withstand economic downturns, and it doesn’t seem to be reliant on investor optimism. Analysts have expressed their confidence in On Holding AG’s financial resilience. On also has more cash than debt, meaning it has high, robust liquidity.

On Holding AG (2024 Performance)

On Running vs Competitors (Nike & Lululemon)

Metric On Running Nike Lululemon
Revenue Growth (YoY) 2024: 32.3% 2024: 0.28% 2024: 18.60%
Gross Margin. Q3: 60.6% (highest since IPO). Q3: 44.6%. Q3: 57.5%
Price-to-Sales Ratio 6.55 2.22 8.5

On outperforms its competitors in almost all of these metrics. The revenue growth being quite high is important, as I see this company as a growth stock—and revenue growth is a big indicator of that. It also has a high price-to-sales ratio and gross margin, meaning it’s valued much higher than Nike and is extremely efficient at producing and selling its products.

On is benefiting from various broad macro trends like fitness culture, sustainability, the shift to direct-to-consumer, high-performance products, and the popularity of wearing athletic clothes casually.
The main differentiation is the technology involved—CloudTec—which is a cushioning system that gives the user a unique experience that is comfortable while also transferring the energy of your foot to the ground efficiently. This technology is very hard to replicate by competitors.

Gen-Z will most likely remain loyal to this company due to the brand’s alignment with Gen-Z values such as sustainability and its social media presence, with big influencers wearing their products. However, as with most clothing companies, there is always a risk of fashion trends changing or competitors taking their market share.

On is backed by data for the most part—specifically its revenue growth, its unique product, and the globalization of the brand. However, the stock’s value may be a little inflated due to the hype around its sustainability efforts.

The stock is most likely being traded rationally—especially with its growth prospects, strong product, and sustainability focus giving the stock long-term value. Social media platforms have and can increase the momentum of short-term shifts, but not in the long run.

On Holding AG is worth a long-term investment, especially due to its prime position in the market and its ability to carve out a nice niche for itself in the sportswear world—where they are delivering a premium product while also making it sustainable. This should make it a top choice as the world looks to become more sustainable while also wanting performance.

This stock fits into the strategy of growth investing due to the company having grown a lot in the past few years, and it shows no signs of slowing down with its focus on globalization. Its revenue growth is predicted to be high next year, and its gross margin is growing—the largest it has since last year—and with globalization, it’s expected to rise. However, there are risks, mainly coming from competitors like Hoka, Adidas, and Nike.

You should probably wait to invest in On until there is a dip, because the company’s current price may be inflated with a little bit of hype surrounding its potential for large growth in the next few years—especially with its increasing sustainability initiatives and its entry into new markets across the world.

Monster Beverage Corporation

Monster Beverage (MNST) – Popular energy drink brand with younger consumers.
NYSE: MNST
Consumer staples sector
Key Narrative: Monster is still a giant in its sector; however, it has to continue to innovate if it wants to keep its edge in a market that is rapidly moving forward.
This stock is a growth stock mostly due to the fact it has consistently grown every year; however, if you invest, you should be careful of the competitive pressures.
The risk level is moderate, mainly due to its competition with brands like Red Bull, Celsius, C4, Bang, and others.

Monster's brand is genuinely embedded in our generation’s lifestyle, and it's driven mainly by effective marketing. The drink itself is strongly associated with extreme sports and gaming, which connect to Gen-Z interests. So while it is genuinely embedded in Gen-Z, the appeal wouldn't be as big without the effective marketing strategies.
Monster does make an effort to be sustainable, and this is seen in packaging initiatives and its commitment to reducing its carbon footprint. However, with that being said, Monster is a processed drink, and the company itself isn't as transparent as other companies, so it's hard to know how sustainable it really is. So while it does make an effort to be sustainable in some areas, it isn't as sustainable as other brands, and this can be viewed as greenwashing rather than a commitment to change.
Monster's demand is a mix of real and manufactured demand. Monster has a strong, loyal following mostly due to its product. People genuinely love the taste, energy boost, and its variety. Its longtime domination of the market especially displays its appeal and functionality. However, from what I can tell, Monster does use influencers and sponsorships to build visibility, especially to younger audiences who see their favorite athletes, influencers, and celebrities drinking the beverage. This creates FOMO, especially with the fact that Monster sometimes creates limited products. To summarize, while there is influencer-driven FOMO, most of the demand comes from genuine fans of the product.

Monster's growth rate is sustainable, particularly with its brand strength being quite strong in the energy market—only second to Red Bull. It's also sustainable because of its product diversification and its global expansion. However, there has been some aggressive expansion in its past with its sponsorships and some of its new product hype and its limited edition items. To surmise, its current growth rate is sustainable because only a small part of its growth was a function of aggressive expansion.
Monster's business model is extremely efficient, and the company boasts high margins of around 50–55%, which is strong for the sector. The company also has a high return on equity (ROE), meaning Monster is great at generating big returns while not investing excessively in assets. It also has a low debt-to-equity ratio, which means the financial risk is low. Overall, Monster isn't just a fast-growing company, it's also an efficiently growing company.
Monster can withstand economic downturns due to a few factors: its massive cash reserves, its very tiny debt, and its cash-generating abilities. So to summarize, Monster's balance sheet is very good—it can withstand economic downturns, meaning it's not reliant on investor optimism.

Monster Beverage vs. Celsius Holdings, Inc. (2024 Comparison)

Metric Monster Beverage Celsius Holdings, Inc.
Revenue Growth (YoY) 4.94% 3%

Gross Margin 55.5% (Q4 2024) 50.2% (2024)

Price-to-Sales Ratio 7.16 5.98

Monster Beverage outperforms one of its main competitors in almost every statistic. I couldn't find any recent information on any of the other competitors that would be valuable for this comparison due to other companies being private, or having only outdated data available, or being very new companies. We see, however, that the revenue growth is higher than its competitors, which is important because I see this as a growth stock and revenue growth is a big indicator of that. Monster also has a higher price-to-sales ratio and gross margin, meaning it's valued higher than Celsius and that Monster is more efficient at producing and selling its products.

Monster is benefiting from various different broad macro trends, like in the health and fitness region where customers are looking for products that boost energy. This has boosted demand. There is also a global energy drink consumption growth. Also, the sustainability benefits Monster because it does appear they are making efforts to be more green.
The main moat is its brand equity, global distribution, and innovative products. Its business model is hard to replicate due to its sponsorships, good marketing, and loyal fanbase.
Monster has built a loyal fanbase in Gen-Z with an authentic image and the fact it has involved itself with things popular with Gen-Z like gaming and extreme sports. It's shown an ability to adapt to evolving trends. However, if the company wants Gen-Z to stay loyal, it will have to stay relevant to Gen-Z's lifestyle—like the current trend of health and sustainability.

Monster's valuation is somewhat supported by the fundamentals because it does have a strong financial performance, high brand loyalty, and global growth potential. However, its high price-to-earnings ratio does suggest that the stock could be overvalued, with a smaller portion of the stock's current value being due to hype and not data-backed growth prospects.

There are no major signs of insider selling at the company. There is also little insider buying, suggesting that while there is no doubt about the company by the insiders, there is also no extreme confidence.

MNST is a stock worth holding in the long run. This is primarily due to a few things. Firstly, it has a very strong position in the market and has a loyal fanbase. Secondly, the company has high gross margins at 60% and has maintained a steady YoY growth, and on top of that, the energy drink market is still expanding globally. This shows that it has been profitable and looks to continue to be. Thirdly, the company does benefit from some trends, such as the new trend around performance beverages. All of these factors point toward the thesis of this stock being a stock that's worth being held in the long term rather than a momentum play.
Monster fits quite well in a long-term investment strategy due to its consistent growth, high profitability, its debt-free nature, and its global expansion. Overall, it's a great company—however, even great companies can be bad investments, so look for a good entry point. Don't buy MNST, for example, if there is unwarranted hype around the stock, as it would be overvalued.
Strong long-term entry points would be between $47–54, as the stock has bounced before. Anything between $54–57 would be a good/okay entry point, and anything above that would be, in my opinion, an overvalued zone to buy at—at least at this moment. Moving forward, it's important to pay attention to three important factors:

1. Competition, as the company has strong competition in Red Bull (private) and Celsius.
   
   

2. Valuation – make sure not to buy at a hyped-up price.
   
   

3. Earnings growth of the corporation.
   
   

These are all very important, as knowing when to enter and when to exit is key.