Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. APH scored 70.9, OUST scored 21.4 — APH leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. OUST'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
49.5
APH leads
OUST
Ouster, Inc.
Electronic Components · Quality-Growth
21.4
$39.90 · $2.9B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthOUST+62.8%
Strongest balance sheetOUST0.04
Highest qualityAPH78 / 100
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
APH
stronger →← stronger
OUST
78
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
15
95
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
99
48
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
6
APH is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
APH
OUST
$4.6bB
FCF
-$82mF
+51.7%A
Rev
+62.8%A
1.20C
D/E
0.04A-
43.6xC+
P/E
—
0.98B+
PEG
—
—
P/S
14.0xC
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
OUST
142% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
—
~39%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
—
-68%
1-yr DCF upside
—
-59%
5-yr DCF upside
—
-41%
10-yr DCF upside
—
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
OUST
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
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.
OUSTOuster, Inc.
Electronic Components · $39.90 · beta 3.23
Why now
Electronic Components · market cap $2.9b. Down 37% from 52-week high of $63.79 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +63% — in hypergrowth territory. 5 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $59.40 (implying +49% upside).
Moat
Turnaround / out-of-favor name — GAAP-unprofitable for now, so the durability case is forward-looking: it rests on a recovery (margin normalization, a cyclical upturn or restructuring) or an un-monetized asset (IP / network effects / first-mover position) rather than on current reported results.
Risk
Free cash flow is negative (-$82m) — capital raises or debt issuance likely required; dilution / leverage risk. Currently unprofitable (margin -26.0%) — path to GAAP profitability is the core thesis risk. Down 37% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up.
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 OUST diverge
On the headline score the gap is 49.5 points in favor of APH. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
QualityAPH 77.8 · OUST 15.3APH +62.5
ValueAPH 48.2 · OUST 6.5APH +41.7
GrowthAPH 95.1 · OUST 98.5OUST +3.4
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 OUST the better stock?
APH scores higher: APH 70.9, OUST 21.4 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 OUST differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where APH leads by 63 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 APH and OUST 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.