Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CGNX scored 47.3, GRMN scored 65.0 — GRMN leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. CGNX's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but GRMN'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.
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestGRMN27.7x
Fastest growthGRMN+15.7%
Strongest balance sheetGRMN0.03
Highest qualityGRMN85 / 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)
CGNX
stronger →← stronger
GRMN
73
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
85
71
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
83
20
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
39
GRMN is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CGNX
GRMN
$268mC
FCF
$1.5bC+
+8.7%B
Rev
+15.7%B+
0.04A-
D/E
0.03A-
60.5xC
P/E
27.7xB
2.71C
PEG
2.85C
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
CGNX
GRMN
229% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
75% above
~39%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~22%/yr
-71%
1-yr DCF upside
-48%
-70%
5-yr DCF upside
-43%
-67%
10-yr DCF upside
-34%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
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.
Scientific & Technical Instruments · market cap $51.8b. 15% off the 52-week high of $314.28. Revenue growing +16%, comfortably above the S&P median. 6 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $302.00 (implying +13% upside).
Moat
Net margin 23% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 19% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. $51.8b market cap gives the company enough scale to absorb fixed costs that subscale competitors can't, without yet being so large that growth has to come from acquisition.
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 CGNX and GRMN diverge
On the headline score the gap is 17.7 points in favor of GRMN. The widest single difference is Value, where GRMN leads by 18.6 points.
ValueCGNX 20.5 · GRMN 39.1GRMN +18.6
QualityCGNX 72.6 · GRMN 85.0GRMN +12.4
GrowthCGNX 71.2 · GRMN 82.6GRMN +11.4
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 GRMN or CGNX the better stock?
GRMN scores higher: GRMN 65.0, 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 GRMN and CGNX differ most?
The widest gap is value, where GRMN leads by 19 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. GRMN leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are GRMN 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.