Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CF scored 70.3, CTVA scored 42.6 — CF leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. CF's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but CTVA's are as of March 2026 — a 3-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
CF
CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
Agricultural Inputs · Quality-Growth
70.3
$111.54 · $16.9B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
27.7
CF leads
CTVA
Corteva, Inc.
Agricultural Inputs · Quality-Growth
42.6
$13.24 · $8.8B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestCTVA8.2x
Fastest growthCF+19.3%
Strongest balance sheetCF0.41
Highest qualityCF91 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueCTVA-71%
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)
CF
stronger →← stronger
CTVA
91
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
63
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
42
77
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
29
CF is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CF
CTVA
$1.9bC+
FCF
$2.0bB
+19.3%B+
Rev
+2.9%C
0.41B
D/E
0.57C+
8.3xA-
P/E
8.2xA
0.49A
PEG
0.62A-
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
CF
CTVA
68% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
71% below
~-18%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
decline
+186%
1-yr DCF upside
+243%
+216%
5-yr DCF upside
+242%
+269%
10-yr DCF upside
+240%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
CF
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
Cyclical growth
CTVA
No notable signals flagged.
The companies
CFCF Industries Holdings, Inc.
Agricultural Inputs · $111.54 · beta 0.53
Why now
Agricultural Inputs · market cap $16.9b. Down 21% from 52-week high of $141.96 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +19%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.49 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 20 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $127.69 (implying +14% upside).
Moat
Net margin 27% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 30% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which.
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.
CTVACorteva, Inc.
Agricultural Inputs · $13.24
Why now
Agricultural Inputs · market cap $8.8b. 9% off the 52-week high of $14.62. PEG 0.62 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 10 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $17.28 (implying +31% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of depreciation and amortization ($1.2b) — non-cash charges that hold down reported earnings while cash generation stays strong.
Risk
Net margin 2.8% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
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 CF and CTVA diverge
On the headline score the gap is 27.7 points in favor of CF. The widest single difference is Value, where CF leads by 47.1 points.
ValueCF 76.6 · CTVA 29.5CF +47.1
QualityCF 90.9 · CTVA 62.8CF +28.1
GrowthCF 50.0 · CTVA 41.9CF +8.1
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 CF or CTVA the better stock?
CF scores higher: CF 70.3, CTVA 42.6 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 CF and CTVA differ most?
The widest gap is value, where CF leads by 47 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. CF leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are CF and CTVA 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.