COMPARE · Data as of August 25, 2026
AGX vs WMS
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. AGX scored 69.2, WMS scored 72.5 — WMS leads.
Compare another set
AGX
Argan, Inc.
69.2
$468.98 · $6.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
3.3
WMS leads
WMS
Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc.
72.5
$142.30 · $10.7B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestWMS24.2x
- Fastest growthAGX+14.5%
- Strongest balance sheetAGX0.02
- Highest qualityAGX88 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueAGX-60%
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
WMS
88
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
81
87
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
80
43
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
59
AGX is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
AGX
WMS
$487mC
FCF
$550mC+
+14.5%B+
Rev
+10.4%B
0.02A
D/E
0.97C+
44.0xC
P/E
24.2xB+
1.28B
PEG
1.36B
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
WMS
60% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
20% above
~-7%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~15%/yr
+90%
1-yr DCF upside
-30%
+152%
5-yr DCF upside
-17%
+287%
10-yr DCF upside
+6%
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
- Diluting shareholders
WMS
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Raising its dividend
- Durable high returns
The companies
AGXArgan, Inc.
Why now
Engineering & Construction · market cap $6.6b. Down 42% from 52-week high of $805.75 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +14%, comfortably above the S&P median. 5 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $667.80 (implying +42% 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 34% — 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 — non-cash charges (depreciation, intangible amortization) are holding down GAAP earnings while cash generation stays strong.
Risk
Down 42% 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 44x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
WMSAdvanced Drainage Systems, Inc.
Why now
Building Products & Equipment · market cap $10.7b. Down 21% from 52-week high of $179.31 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +10%, comfortably above the S&P median. 11 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $183.36 (implying +29% upside).
Moat
Net margin 14% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 25% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 122% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Mature compounder — the risk is paying up for quality at a moment when growth is decelerating. Watch for sequential revenue + margin trends; the inflection from "compounder" to "ex-compounder" is hard to spot until the multiple already started compressing.
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 WMS diverge
On the headline score the gap is 3.3 points in favor of WMS. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- ValueAGX 43.2 · WMS 58.8WMS +15.6
- GrowthAGX 87.3 · WMS 80.1AGX +7.2
- QualityAGX 87.8 · WMS 80.9AGX +6.9
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.