COMPARE · Data as of August 12, 2026
ADM vs BRBR
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. ADM scored 52.2, BRBR scored 72.0 — BRBR leads.
Compare another set
ADM
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company
52.2
$79.73 · $38.4B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
19.8
BRBR leads
BRBR
BellRing Brands, Inc.
72
$10.85 · $1.3B
fundamentals as of
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
ADM
stronger →← stronger
BRBR
65
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
62
52
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
67
41
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
97
BRBR is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
ADM
BRBR
$1.7bC+
FCF
$225mC
+1.0%C
Rev
+16.1%B+
0.39A-
D/E
—
21.8xB
P/E
8.2xA
1.05B+
PEG
0.51A-
Winner per row is the stronger grade in our model; a tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
ADM
BRBR
7% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
85% below
~5%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
decline
-7%
1-yr DCF upside
+413%
-7%
5-yr DCF upside
+582%
-6%
10-yr DCF upside
+954%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
ADM
Why this score
- Short track record
BRBR
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Short track record
The companies
ADMArcher-Daniels-Midland Company
Why now
Farm Products · market cap $38.4b. 10% off the 52-week high of $88.46. 10 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $78.70 (implying -1% upside).
Moat
Moat signals from the quantitative card are modest — profitability and capital efficiency are middle-of-pack. The thesis here depends on softer factors (switching costs, brand, distribution, regulatory protection) not captured by the quality-growth screen.
Risk
ROE 8% is below the long-run sustainable threshold of ~10% — capital efficiency would need to improve for the equity base to compound at the market rate.
BRBRBellRing Brands, Inc.
Why now
Packaged Foods · market cap $1.3b. Down 75% from 52-week high of $43.02 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +16%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.51 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 12 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $14.71 (implying +36% upside).
Moat
FCF converts 131% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Down 75% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. ROE -37% is below the long-run sustainable threshold of ~10% — capital efficiency would need to improve for the equity base to compound at the market rate.
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 ADM and BRBR diverge
On the headline score the gap is 19.8 points in favour of BRBR. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- ValueADM 41.5 · BRBR 97.5BRBR +56.0
- GrowthADM 52.4 · BRBR 66.7BRBR +14.3
- QualityADM 65.4 · BRBR 62.1ADM +3.3
Pillars run 0–100 against sector peers, so a 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.