Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. AGCO scored 53.7, VRT scored 74.1 — VRT leads.
Compare another set
AGCO
AGCO Corporation
Farm & Heavy Construction Machinery · Quality-Growth
53.7
$103.28 · $7.2B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
20.4
VRT leads
VRT
Vertiv Holdings Co
Electrical Equipment & Parts · Quality-Growth
74.1
$242.78 · $93.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestAGCO14.9x
Fastest growthVRT+26.2%
Strongest balance sheetAGCO0.66
Highest qualityVRT86 / 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)
AGCO
stronger →← stronger
VRT
56
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
86
41
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
94
67
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
50
VRT is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
AGCO
VRT
$330mC
FCF
$2.9bB
-13.5%D
Rev
+26.2%A-
0.66B
D/E
0.70B
14.9xA-
P/E
54.9xD
0.86B+
PEG
0.82B+
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
AGCO
VRT
63% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
124% above
~15%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~38%/yr
-37%
1-yr DCF upside
-65%
-39%
5-yr DCF upside
-55%
-41%
10-yr DCF upside
-37%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
AGCO
Why this score
Buying back stock
VRT
Why this score
Durable high returns
The companies
AGCOAGCO Corporation
Farm & Heavy Construction Machinery · $103.28 · beta 1.07
Why now
Farm & Heavy Construction Machinery · market cap $7.2b. Down 28% from 52-week high of $143.78 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue -14% — in contraction; any catalyst that reverses this triggers re-rating. PEG 0.86 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 15 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $125.87 (implying +22% upside).
Moat
ROE 12% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere.
Risk
Revenue contracting -14% — the operational turn is not yet visible in the top line.
VRTVertiv Holdings Co
Electrical Equipment & Parts · $242.78 · beta 2.05
Why now
Electrical Equipment & Parts · market cap $93.5b. Down 36% from 52-week high of $379.94 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +26% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.82 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 28 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $337.43 (implying +39% upside).
Moat
Net margin 15% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 36% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 169% of net income, helped by cash released from working capital ($1.1b) that doesn't repeat every year.
Risk
Trailing P/E 54.9x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Down 36% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 2.05 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return.
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 AGCO and VRT diverge
On the headline score the gap is 20.4 points in favor of VRT. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
GrowthAGCO 41.4 · VRT 94.1VRT +52.7
QualityAGCO 55.7 · VRT 86.2VRT +30.5
ValueAGCO 67.0 · VRT 50.2AGCO +16.8
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 VRT or AGCO the better stock?
VRT scores higher: VRT 74.1, AGCO 53.7 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 VRT and AGCO differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where VRT leads by 53 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 VRT and AGCO 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.