Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. ADM scored 42.5, PEP scored 65.5 — PEP leads.
Compare another set
ADM
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company
Farm Products · Quality-Growth
42.5
$79.89 · $38.5B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
23.0
PEP leads
PEP
PepsiCo, Inc.
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic · Quality-Growth
65.5
$125.97 · $171.7B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestPEP16.5x
Fastest growthPEP+6.4%
Strongest balance sheetADM0.39
Highest qualityPEP78 / 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)
ADM
stronger →← stronger
PEP
56
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
78
43
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
56
32
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
64
PEP is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
ADM
PEP
$1.7bC+
FCF
$10.5bA-
-6.2%D
Rev
+6.4%C+
0.39B+
D/E
2.31C
22.6xC+
P/E
16.5xB+
0.98B+
PEG
1.31B
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
ADM
PEP
9% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
5% above
~6%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~6%/yr
-9%
1-yr DCF upside
-8%
-8%
5-yr DCF upside
-5%
-8%
10-yr DCF upside
-1%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
ADM
No notable signals flagged.
PEP
Why this score
Durable high returns
The companies
ADMArcher-Daniels-Midland Company
Farm Products · $79.89 · beta 0.63
Why now
Farm Products · market cap $38.5b. 10% off the 52-week high of $88.75. Revenue -6% — in contraction; any catalyst that reverses this triggers re-rating. PEG 0.98 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 10 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $80.40 (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
Revenue contracting -6% — the operational turn is not yet visible in the top line. Net margin 2.2% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first. 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.
PEPPepsiCo, Inc.
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic · $125.97
Why now
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic · market cap $171.7b. Down 27% from 52-week high of $171.48 — deep drawdown territory. 22 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $143.86 (implying +14% upside).
Moat
ROE 49% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 96% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash. $171.7b market cap gives the company enough scale to absorb fixed costs that subscale competitors can't, without yet being so large that growth has to come from acquisition.
Risk
D/E 2.31 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Dividend payout 75% of earnings on a 4.6% yield — distribution coverage is thin; one earnings stumble could force a dividend cut.
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 PEP diverge
On the headline score the gap is 23.0 points in favor of PEP. The widest single difference is Value, where PEP leads by 31.8 points.
ValueADM 32.3 · PEP 64.1PEP +31.8
QualityADM 55.8 · PEP 78.2PEP +22.4
GrowthADM 42.6 · PEP 56.1PEP +13.5
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 PEP or ADM the better stock?
PEP scores higher: PEP 65.5, ADM 42.5 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 PEP and ADM differ most?
The widest gap is value, where PEP leads by 32 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. PEP leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are PEP and ADM 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.