Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. AMTM scored 70.2, HURN scored 69.6 — AMTM leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. AMTM's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but HURN'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.
AMTM
Amentum Holdings, Inc.
Specialty Business Services · Quality-Growth
70.2
$19.29 · $4.7B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
0.6
AMTM leads
HURN
Huron Consulting Group Inc.
Consulting Services · Quality-Growth
69.6
$167.05 · $2.7B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestAMTM23.2x
Fastest growthAMTM+71.6%
Strongest balance sheetAMTM0.80
Highest qualityHURN67 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueAMTM-56%
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)
AMTM
stronger →← stronger
HURN
44
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
67
88
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
83
88
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
60
AMTM is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
AMTM
HURN
$474mC
FCF
$104mC
+71.6%A
Rev
+11.7%B
0.80B
D/E
2.25D
23.2xB+
P/E
24.9xB
3.22D
PEG
1.47B
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
AMTM
HURN
56% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
37% above
~-6%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~17%/yr
+77%
1-yr DCF upside
-36%
+126%
5-yr DCF upside
-27%
+222%
10-yr DCF upside
-11%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
AMTM
Why this score
Short track record
HURN
Why this score
Buying back stock
The companies
AMTMAmentum Holdings, Inc.
Specialty Business Services · $19.29 · beta 0.31
Why now
Specialty Business Services · market cap $4.7b. Down 49% from 52-week high of $38.11 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +72% — in hypergrowth territory. 12 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $29.42 (implying +52% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of depreciation and amortization ($439m) — non-cash charges that hold down reported earnings while cash generation stays strong.
Risk
Down 49% 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 1.4% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first. ROE 4% 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.
HURNHuron Consulting Group Inc.
Consulting Services · $167.05 · beta 0.09
Why now
Consulting Services · market cap $2.7b. 11% off the 52-week high of $186.78. Revenue growing +12%, comfortably above the S&P median. 4 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $190.75 (implying +14% upside).
Moat
ROE 27% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which.
Risk
D/E 2.25 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer.
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 AMTM and HURN diverge
On the headline score the gap is 0.6 points in favor of AMTM. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueAMTM 88.3 · HURN 60.5AMTM +27.8
QualityAMTM 44.4 · HURN 67.1HURN +22.7
GrowthAMTM 88.2 · HURN 83.1AMTM +5.1
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 AMTM or HURN the better stock?
AMTM scores higher: AMTM 70.2, HURN 69.6 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 AMTM and HURN differ most?
The widest gap is value, where AMTM leads by 28 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 AMTM and HURN 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.