Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. BLDR scored 26.9, WMS scored 70.6 — WMS leads.
Compare another set
BLDR
Builders FirstSource, Inc.
Building Products & Equipment · Quality-Growth
26.9
$52.85 · $5.7B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
43.7
WMS leads
WMS
Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc.
Building Products & Equipment · Quality-Growth
70.6
$125.79 · $9.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestWMS21.4x
Fastest growthWMS+10.4%
Strongest balance sheetWMS0.97
Highest qualityWMS81 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueBLDR-1%
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)
BLDR
stronger →← stronger
WMS
53
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
81
12
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
70
30
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
62
WMS is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
BLDR
WMS
$639mC+
FCF
$550mC+
-7.4%D
Rev
+10.4%B
1.31C
D/E
0.97C+
57.4xD
P/E
21.4xB+
—
PEG
1.19B+
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
BLDR
WMS
1% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
24% above
~-2%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~13%/yr
+13%
1-yr DCF upside
-26%
+1%
5-yr DCF upside
-19%
-13%
10-yr DCF upside
-9%
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
BLDR
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
WMS
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
The companies
BLDRBuilders FirstSource, Inc.
Building Products & Equipment · $52.85 · beta 1.45
Why now
Building Products & Equipment · market cap $5.7b. Down 60% from 52-week high of $131.50 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue -7% — in contraction; any catalyst that reverses this triggers re-rating. 22 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $76.05 (implying +44% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of depreciation and amortization ($597m) — non-cash charges that hold down reported earnings while cash generation stays strong.
Risk
Trailing P/E 57.4x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Revenue contracting -7% — the operational turn is not yet visible in the top line. Down 60% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up.
WMSAdvanced Drainage Systems, Inc.
Building Products & Equipment · $125.79 · beta 1.29
Why now
Building Products & Equipment · market cap $9.5b. Down 30% from 52-week high of $179.31 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +10%, comfortably above the S&P median. 11 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $182.45 (implying +45% upside).
Moat
Net margin 14% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 25% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 122% 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 BLDR and WMS diverge
On the headline score the gap is 43.7 points in favor of WMS. The widest single difference is Growth, where WMS leads by 57.5 points.
GrowthBLDR 12.4 · WMS 69.9WMS +57.5
ValueBLDR 29.7 · WMS 62.2WMS +32.5
QualityBLDR 52.9 · WMS 80.9WMS +28.0
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 WMS or BLDR the better stock?
WMS scores higher: WMS 70.6, BLDR 26.9 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 WMS and BLDR differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where WMS leads by 58 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. WMS leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are WMS and BLDR 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.