Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. ALB scored 44.2, WDFC scored 57.0 — WDFC leads.
Compare another set
ALB
Albemarle Corporation
Specialty Chemicals · Quality-Growth
44.2
$101.27 · $12.0B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
12.8
WDFC leads
WDFC
WD-40 Company
Specialty Chemicals · Quality-Growth
57
$202.29 · $2.7B
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 qualityWDFC84 / 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
WDFC
49
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
84
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
35
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
44
WDFC is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
ALB
WDFC
$1.3bC+
FCF
$79mC-
+18.3%B+
Rev
+10.2%B
0.19B+
D/E
0.41B
2.0xB
P/S
—
0.79A-
PEG
3.76D
—
P/E
30.7xC
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
WDFC
33% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
106% above
~-3%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~25%/yr
+38%
1-yr DCF upside
-55%
+50%
5-yr DCF upside
-52%
+68%
10-yr DCF upside
-47%
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
WDFC
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
Cyclical growth
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.
WDFCWD-40 Company
Specialty Chemicals · $202.29 · beta 0.26
Why now
Specialty Chemicals · market cap $2.7b. Down 32% from 52-week high of $298.90 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +10%, comfortably above the S&P median. 3 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $271.67 (implying +34% upside).
Moat
Net margin 13% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 32% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which.
Risk
Down 32% 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.
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 WDFC diverge
On the headline score the gap is 12.8 points in favor of WDFC. The widest single difference is Quality, where WDFC leads by 34.9 points.
QualityALB 49.3 · WDFC 84.2WDFC +34.9
ValueALB 35.1 · WDFC 44.1WDFC +9.0
GrowthALB 50.0 · WDFC 50.0level
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 WDFC or ALB the better stock?
WDFC scores higher: WDFC 57.0, 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 WDFC and ALB differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where WDFC leads by 35 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. WDFC also leads value, while growth is effectively level between them.
How are WDFC 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.