Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. BRC scored 69.3, MSA scored 69.8 — MSA leads.
Compare another set
BRC
Brady Corporation
Security & Protection Services · Quality-Growth
69.3
$85.35 · $4.0B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
0.5
MSA leads
MSA
MSA Safety Incorporated
Security & Protection Services · Quality-Growth
69.8
$180.71 · $7.0B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestBRC19.8x
Fastest growthBRC+9.8%
Strongest balance sheetBRC0.06
Highest qualityMSA81 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueBRC-16%
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)
BRC
stronger →← stronger
MSA
78
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
81
77
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
66
55
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
63
MSA is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
BRC
MSA
$193mC
FCF
$354mC
+9.8%B
Rev
+6.5%C+
0.06A
D/E
0.46B+
19.8xB+
P/E
22.5xB+
1.67C+
PEG
0.99B+
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
BRC
MSA
16% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
16% above
~3%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~9%/yr
+9%
1-yr DCF upside
-17%
+18%
5-yr DCF upside
-13%
+33%
10-yr DCF upside
-8%
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.
Security & Protection Services · market cap $4.0b. 14% off the 52-week high of $99.29.
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 16% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately.
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.
Security & Protection Services · market cap $7.0b. 14% off the 52-week high of $208.92. PEG 0.99 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 7 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $209.14 (implying +16% 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 22% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 113% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Value re-rating depends on a catalyst. Without one — analyst day, divestiture, margin recovery, capital return — the stock can stay cheap on these multiples for years.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
MSA leads BRC by 6.9 points (76.3 to 69.4), its sharpest advantage coming in PEG (grade B+). A contrarian could still prefer BRC, which trades about 30% below our DCF fair value — a margin of safety the score doesn't reward. Note they play different roles — BRC screens as growth, MSA screens as value — so the model rewards different traits for each.
Our AI analyst is busy right now, so this verdict is drawn directly from the pillars, grades and DCF above.
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 BRC and MSA diverge
On the headline score the gap is 0.5 points in favor of MSA. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
GrowthBRC 76.7 · MSA 66.1BRC +10.6
ValueBRC 55.4 · MSA 63.5MSA +8.1
QualityBRC 78.3 · MSA 81.2level
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 MSA or BRC the better stock?
MSA scores higher: MSA 69.8, BRC 69.3 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 MSA and BRC differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where BRC leads by 11 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 MSA and BRC 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.