Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. AGX scored 77.9, GFF scored 73.6 — AGX leads.
Compare another set
AGX
Argan, Inc.
Engineering & Construction · Quality-Growth
77.9
$387.89 · $5.4B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
4.3
AGX leads
GFF
Griffon Corporation
Building Products & Equipment · Quality-Growth
73.6
$89.74 · $4.1B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestGFF19.3x
Fastest growthAGX+29.0%
Highest qualityAGX89 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueAGX-70%
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)
AGX
stronger →← stronger
GFF
89
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
79
93
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
66
57
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
77
AGX is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
AGX
GFF
$546mC+
FCF
$297mC
+29.0%A-
Rev
+26.9%A-
0.02A
D/E
—
30.7xC+
P/E
19.3xB+
1.43B
PEG
0.54A-
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
AGX
GFF
70% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
25% above
~-15%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~10%/yr
+168%
1-yr DCF upside
-20%
+236%
5-yr DCF upside
-20%
+376%
10-yr DCF upside
-19%
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
AGX
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
GFF
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
The companies
AGXArgan, Inc.
Engineering & Construction · $387.89 · beta 0.55
Why now
Engineering & Construction · market cap $5.4b. Down 52% from 52-week high of $805.75 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +29% — in hypergrowth territory. 6 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $570.50 (implying +47% 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 35% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of cash released from working capital ($356m) — a release that doesn't repeat every year the way earnings can.
Risk
Down 52% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Trailing P/E 31x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
GFFGriffon Corporation
Building Products & Equipment · $89.74 · beta 1.44
Why now
Building Products & Equipment · market cap $4.1b. 17% off the 52-week high of $108.57. Revenue growing +27% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.54 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 7 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $126.86 (implying +41% upside).
Moat
FCF converts 166% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Beta 1.44 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 AGX and GFF diverge
On the headline score the gap is 4.3 points in favor of AGX. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
GrowthAGX 92.8 · GFF 65.5AGX +27.3
ValueAGX 57.0 · GFF 76.9GFF +19.9
QualityAGX 89.3 · GFF 78.9AGX +10.4
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 AGX or GFF the better stock?
AGX scores higher: AGX 77.9, GFF 73.6 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 AGX and GFF differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where AGX leads by 27 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 AGX and GFF 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.