Side-by-side comparison of government contract activity, agency reach, and market coverage.
Trusted by teams at
Head-to-Head
Relative comparison across 6 key government procurement dimensions.
Detailed Stats
Raw metrics for each vendor across all tracked dimensions.
Advantages
Auto-generated comparison based on contract data.
Higher total contract value
$125.2B vs $5.2B
More diverse sector coverage
48 vs 20 sectors
100% more contracts
555 vs 277
200 more agencies served
291 vs 91
Active in 17 more states
43 vs 26
Frequently Asked Questions
COCA COLA BOTTLING has 277 government contracts valued at $125.2B, while PEPSI has 555 contracts valued at $5.2B. By contract volume, PEPSI leads. By total contract value, COCA COLA BOTTLING leads. Both vendors serve state and local government agencies across multiple states.
PEPSI has 555 government contracts compared to COCA COLA BOTTLING's 277. However, contract count alone doesn't tell the full story — contract values, agency diversity, and sector coverage all factor into evaluating a vendor's government market presence. Civic IQ provides detailed side-by-side analysis across all dimensions.
COCA COLA BOTTLING serves 91 government agencies, while PEPSI serves 291. PEPSI has broader agency reach. The two vendors share 3 agency clients in common, creating direct competitive overlap. Agency reach is a key indicator of a vendor's ability to navigate government procurement processes.
COCA COLA BOTTLING operates in 26 states, while PEPSI covers 43 states. PEPSI has broader geographic coverage. Geographic footprint matters for agencies evaluating vendors with regional experience and for vendors assessing competitive landscapes in specific markets.
Between them, COCA COLA BOTTLING and PEPSI cover 7 government procurement sectors. They directly compete in SUPPLIES, FOOD_SERVICES, and Product. COCA COLA BOTTLING's top sectors include SUPPLIES, FOOD_SERVICES, and Product, while PEPSI focuses on FOOD_SERVICES, SUPPLIES, and OTHER.
Yes, COCA COLA BOTTLING and PEPSI share 3 government agency clients, including City of Sturgis (SD), Jamestown Park District (ND), and Fremont County School District 25 (WY). Shared clients represent direct competitive overlap — tracking which agencies work with both vendors helps you understand switching patterns, contract renewal timing, and competitive displacement opportunities.
See live SLED buying signals, source docs, decision-makers, contract context, and the next step into your CRM or pipeline.