Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. BELFB scored 58.8, CLS scored 68.4 — CLS leads.
Compare another set
BELFB
Bel Fuse Inc.
Electronic Components · Quality-Growth
58.8
$244.50 · $3.5B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
9.6
CLS leads
CLS
Celestica Inc.
Electronic Components · Quality-Growth
68.4
$362.16 · $45.7B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestCLS37.6x
Fastest growthCLS+28.5%
Strongest balance sheetBELFB0.03
Highest qualityCLS74 / 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)
BELFB
stronger →← stronger
CLS
65
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
74
84
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
95
37
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
45
CLS is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
BELFB
CLS
$73mC-
FCF
$519mC+
+25.3%A-
Rev
+28.5%A-
0.03A-
D/E
0.40B
59.3xC
P/E
37.6xB
1.68C+
PEG
1.00B+
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
BELFB
CLS
277% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
376% above
~43%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~60%/yr
-75%
1-yr DCF upside
-84%
-73%
5-yr DCF upside
-79%
-71%
10-yr DCF upside
-70%
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
BELFB
No notable signals flagged.
CLS
Why this score
Durable high returns
The companies
BELFBBel Fuse Inc.
Electronic Components · $244.50 · beta 1.37
Why now
Electronic Components · market cap $3.5b. Down 27% from 52-week high of $335.29 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +25% — in hypergrowth territory. 9 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $333.00 (implying +36% upside).
Moat
Moat signals from the quantitative card are modest — profitability and capital efficiency are middle-of-pack. The thesis here depends on softer factors (switching costs, brand, distribution, regulatory protection) not captured by the quality-growth screen.
Risk
Trailing P/E 59.3x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating.
CLSCelestica Inc.
Electronic Components · $362.16 · beta 1.32
Why now
Electronic Components · market cap $45.7b. Down 24% from 52-week high of $474.03 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +28% — in hypergrowth territory. 18 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $473.91 (implying +31% upside).
Moat
ROE 53% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which.
Risk
Trailing P/E 38x 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 BELFB and CLS diverge
On the headline score the gap is 9.6 points in favor of CLS. The widest single difference is Growth, where CLS leads by 10.4 points.
GrowthBELFB 84.3 · CLS 94.7CLS +10.4
QualityBELFB 64.9 · CLS 74.4CLS +9.5
ValueBELFB 37.2 · CLS 45.5CLS +8.3
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 CLS or BELFB the better stock?
CLS scores higher: CLS 68.4, BELFB 58.8 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 CLS and BELFB differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where CLS leads by 10 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. CLS leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are CLS and BELFB 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.