Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. ALB scored 44.2, AXTA scored 52.5 — AXTA leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. ALB's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but AXTA's are as of March 2026 — a 3-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
ALB
Albemarle Corporation
Specialty Chemicals · Quality-Growth
44.2
$101.27 · $12.0B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
8.3
AXTA leads
AXTA
Axalta Coating Systems Ltd.
Specialty Chemicals · Quality-Growth
52.5
$32.63 · $7.0B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthALB+18.3%
Strongest balance sheetALB0.19
Highest qualityAXTA65 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueALB-33%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
ALB
stronger →← stronger
AXTA
49
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
65
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
33
35
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
68
AXTA is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
ALB
AXTA
$1.3bC+
FCF
$488mC
+18.3%B+
Rev
-2.6%D+
0.19B+
D/E
1.19C
2.0xB
P/S
—
0.79A-
PEG
2.04C
—
P/E
20.0xB
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
ALB
AXTA
33% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
10% above
~-3%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~8%/yr
+38%
1-yr DCF upside
-12%
+50%
5-yr DCF upside
-9%
+68%
10-yr DCF upside
-4%
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
ALB
Why this score
Cyclical growth
AXTA
Why this score
Buying back stock
The companies
ALBAlbemarle Corporation
Specialty Chemicals · $101.27 · beta 1.36
Why now
Specialty Chemicals · market cap $12.0b. Down 54% from 52-week high of $221.00 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +18%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.79 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 20 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $168.56 (implying +66% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of depreciation and amortization ($642m) — non-cash charges that hold down reported earnings while cash generation stays strong.
Risk
Down 54% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Net margin 3.8% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first. ROE 2% 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.
AXTAAxalta Coating Systems Ltd.
Specialty Chemicals · $32.63 · beta 1.26
Why now
Specialty Chemicals · market cap $7.0b. 15% off the 52-week high of $38.61. 15 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $39.27 (implying +20% upside).
Moat
ROE 15% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 132% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
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 ALB and AXTA diverge
On the headline score the gap is 8.3 points in favor of AXTA. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueALB 35.1 · AXTA 67.5AXTA +32.4
GrowthALB 50.0 · AXTA 33.1ALB +16.9
QualityALB 49.3 · AXTA 64.6AXTA +15.3
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 AXTA or ALB the better stock?
AXTA scores higher: AXTA 52.5, ALB 44.2 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 AXTA and ALB differ most?
The widest gap is value, where AXTA leads by 32 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 AXTA and ALB 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.