Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CCS scored 73.0, CWK scored 79.0 — CWK leads.
Compare another set
CCS
Century Communities, Inc.
Real Estate - Development · Financial strength
74.1Fin
$55.53 · $1.6B
fundamentals as of
Strength gap
27.0
CCS leads
CWK
Cushman & Wakefield Limited
Real Estate Services · Financial strength
47.1Fin
$10.92 · $2.6B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthCWK+8.9%
Strongest balance sheetCCS0.66
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CCS
CWK
2.3%B
Yield
0.0%C
-8.9%D
Rev
+8.9%B
0.66A-
D/E
1.50C+
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.
The companies
CCSCentury Communities, Inc.
Real Estate - Development · $55.53 · beta 1.28
Why now
Real Estate - Development · market cap $1.6b. Down 27% from 52-week high of $76.00 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue -9% — in contraction; any catalyst that reverses this triggers re-rating.
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
Revenue contracting -9% — the operational turn is not yet visible in the top line. Net margin 3.4% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first. ROE 5% is below the long-run sustainable threshold of ~10% — capital efficiency would need to improve for the equity base to compound at the market rate.
CWKCushman & Wakefield Limited
Real Estate Services · $10.92 · beta 1.51
Why now
Real Estate Services · market cap $2.6b. Down 37% from 52-week high of $17.40 — deep drawdown territory. PEG 0.22 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 11 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $17.73 (implying +62% 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
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. Beta 1.51 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. 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.
Common questions
Is CWK or CCS the better stock?
CWK scores higher: CWK 79.0, CCS 73.0 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.
How are CWK and CCS 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.