Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. ACM scored 51.9, EME scored 72.5 — EME leads.
Compare another set
ACM
AECOM
Engineering & Construction · Quality-Growth
51.9
$59.28 · $7.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
20.6
EME leads
EME
EMCOR Group, Inc.
Engineering & Construction · Quality-Growth
72.5
$789.45 · $34.8B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestACM20.9x
Fastest growthEME+16.6%
Strongest balance sheetEME0.13
Highest qualityEME84 / 100
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
Growth against the P/E multiple. Up and to the right is cheaper and faster — the quality-growth idea in one picture. Points beyond the axis are pinned to the edge and marked off-scale rather than allowed to compress everything else.
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
ACM
stronger →← stronger
EME
64
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
84
36
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
88
61
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
52
EME is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
ACM
EME
$203mC
FCF
$1.2bC+
-4.2%D+
Rev
+16.6%B+
1.39C
D/E
0.13A-
20.9xB+
P/E
24.6xB
0.65A-
PEG
0.32A
Winner per row is the stronger grade; where grades tie, the better figure breaks it. A true tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
ACM
EME
137% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
75% above
~26%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~24%/yr
-58%
1-yr DCF upside
-50%
-58%
5-yr DCF upside
-43%
-58%
10-yr DCF upside
-31%
These two disagree on this pair: the Value pillar ranks cheapness against sector peers, while price-vs-fair-value is an absolute read. A name can be the better value in its sector and still the dearer one on cash flows.
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
ACM
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
EME
Why this score
Durable high returns
The companies
ACMAECOM
Engineering & Construction · $59.28 · beta 0.93
Why now
Engineering & Construction · market cap $7.6b. Down 56% from 52-week high of $135.52 — deep drawdown territory. PEG 0.65 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 12 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $85.83 (implying +45% upside).
Moat
ROE 13% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere.
Risk
Down 56% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Net margin 1.9% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
EMEEMCOR Group, Inc.
Engineering & Construction · $789.45 · beta 1.12
Why now
Engineering & Construction · market cap $34.8b. 17% off the 52-week high of $951.96. Revenue growing +17%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.32 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 7 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $1,033 (implying +31% upside).
Moat
ROE 40% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which.
Risk
Value re-rating depends on a catalyst. Without one — analyst day, divestiture, margin recovery, capital return — the stock can stay cheap on these multiples for years.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
Generating verdict… typically 5–10 seconds
Not investment advice. The Bull Rankings publishes a quantitative ranking model and accompanying analysis for general informational purposes only. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security; nothing is personalized to your circumstances, risk tolerance, or tax situation. Investing carries the risk of loss — invest at your own risk and consider consulting a licensed financial professional before acting on anything you read here. See terms and methodology for full disclosures.
Where ACM and EME diverge
On the headline score the gap is 20.6 points in favor of EME. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
GrowthACM 36.0 · EME 88.1EME +52.1
QualityACM 63.8 · EME 83.8EME +20.0
ValueACM 60.7 · EME 51.5ACM +9.2
Pillars run 0–100. Value is judged against each company's own sector, so a Value score is a statement about a company relative to its own industry rather than to the other name here. A wide Value gap usually means the market already prices the difference in quality or growth — which is the trade-off this comparison comes down to.
Common questions
Is EME or ACM the better stock?
EME scores higher: EME 72.5, ACM 51.9 out of 100 on the Bull Rankings quality-growth score, which blends business quality, growth and valuation into one number. A higher score means a stronger business at a more reasonable price — it is not a price target or a recommendation.
Where do EME and ACM differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where EME leads by 52 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. Neither name sweeps: they trade the lead across the three pillars, so the comparison is a trade-off rather than one being better on every measure.
How are EME and ACM scored?
Each carries the same 0–100 quality-growth score used everywhere on the site, built from three pillars — quality (profitability and returns on capital), growth (revenue and earnings), and value (what you pay for them) — combined as a geometric mean, so a weak pillar cannot be papered over by a strong one.
How current is this comparison?
The whole universe is re-scored every trading day after the US market close, so the scores and fundamentals here reflect the latest published edition.