At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestBMI30.7x
Fastest growthBMI+10.9%
Strongest balance sheetBMI0.03
Highest qualityBMI87 / 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)
BMI
stronger →← stronger
CGNX
87
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
73
67
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
71
61
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
20
BMI is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
BMI
CGNX
$150mC
FCF
$268mC
+10.9%B
Rev
+8.7%B
0.03A-
D/E
0.04A-
30.7xB
P/E
60.5xC
2.96C
PEG
2.71C
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
BMI
CGNX
4% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
229% above
~9%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~39%/yr
-13%
1-yr DCF upside
-71%
-4%
5-yr DCF upside
-70%
+10%
10-yr DCF upside
-67%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Scientific & Technical Instruments · market cap $3.8b. Down 36% from 52-week high of $204.00 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +11%, comfortably above the S&P median. 9 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $156.67 (implying +19% 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 18% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 120% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Down 36% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Trailing P/E 31x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
Scientific & Technical Instruments · market cap $10.6b. 14% off the 52-week high of $72.88. 19 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $79.11 (implying +26% upside).
Moat
Net margin 16% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 11% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 153% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Trailing P/E 60.5x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Beta 1.48 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return.
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 BMI and CGNX diverge
On the headline score the gap is 23.7 points in favor of BMI. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueBMI 61.3 · CGNX 20.5BMI +40.8
QualityBMI 87.3 · CGNX 72.6BMI +14.7
GrowthBMI 66.7 · CGNX 71.2CGNX +4.5
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 BMI or CGNX the better stock?
BMI scores higher: BMI 71.0, CGNX 47.3 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 BMI and CGNX differ most?
The widest gap is value, where BMI leads by 41 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 BMI and CGNX 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.