Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. APH scored 70.9, CTS scored 56.8 — APH leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. CTS's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but APH'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.
APH
Amphenol Corporation
Electronic Components · Quality-Growth
70.9
$87.24 · $215.1B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
14.1
APH leads
CTS
CTS Corporation
Electronic Components · Quality-Growth
56.8
$57.25 · $1.6B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestCTS24.0x
Fastest growthAPH+51.7%
Strongest balance sheetCTS0.16
Highest qualityAPH78 / 100
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)
APH
stronger →← stronger
CTS
78
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
73
95
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
60
48
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
41
APH is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
APH
CTS
$4.6bB
FCF
$91mC-
+51.7%A
Rev
+5.2%C+
1.20C
D/E
0.16B+
43.6xC+
P/E
24.0xB+
0.98B+
PEG
1.24B
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
APH
CTS
142% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
16% above
~39%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~8%/yr
-68%
1-yr DCF upside
-15%
-59%
5-yr DCF upside
-14%
-41%
10-yr DCF upside
-12%
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
APH
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
CTS
Why this score
Buying back stock
The companies
APHAmphenol Corporation
Electronic Components · $87.24 · beta 1.24
Why now
Electronic Components · market cap $215.1b. Trading near 52-week high of $89.93 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. Revenue growing +52% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.98 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 19 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $101.66 (implying +17% upside).
Moat
Net margin 18% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 38% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. $215.1b market cap places it among the largest companies in the sector — distribution, R&D, and customer-acquisition costs amortize across a base peers can't replicate.
Risk
Trading within 3% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. Trailing P/E 44x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
CTSCTS Corporation
Electronic Components · $57.25 · beta 0.99
Why now
Electronic Components · market cap $1.6b. 18% off the 52-week high of $69.55. 3 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $70.67 (implying +23% upside).
Moat
Net margin 12% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 12% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 131% 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 APH and CTS diverge
On the headline score the gap is 14.1 points in favor of APH. The widest single difference is Growth, where APH leads by 34.6 points.
GrowthAPH 95.1 · CTS 60.5APH +34.6
ValueAPH 48.2 · CTS 41.4APH +6.8
QualityAPH 77.8 · CTS 73.1APH +4.7
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 APH or CTS the better stock?
APH scores higher: APH 70.9, CTS 56.8 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 APH and CTS differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where APH leads by 35 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. APH leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are APH and CTS 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.