COMPARE · Data as of August 24, 2026
CHDN vs LVS
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CHDN scored 51.6, LVS scored 68.0 — LVS leads.
Compare another set
CHDN
Churchill Downs Incorporated
51.6
$90.71 · $6.3B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
16.4
LVS leads
LVS
Las Vegas Sands Corp.
68
$47.03 · $30.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestCHDN15.4x
- Fastest growthLVS+18.1%
- Highest qualityLVS92 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueLVS-48%
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)
CHDN
stronger →← stronger
LVS
63
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
92
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
44
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
68
LVS is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CHDN
LVS
$95mC-
FCF
$2.7bB
+5.7%C+
Rev
+18.1%B+
3.49C
D/E
—
15.4xB+
P/E
18.2xB
1.69C+
PEG
1.12B+
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
CHDN
LVS
208% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
48% below
~33%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~-6%/yr
-69%
1-yr DCF upside
+66%
-68%
5-yr DCF upside
+90%
-65%
10-yr DCF upside
+134%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
CHDN
Why this score
- Raising its dividend
- Cyclical growth
LVS
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Raising its dividend
- Durable high returns
- Cyclical growth
The companies
CHDNChurchill Downs Incorporated
Why now
Gambling · market cap $6.3b. Down 23% from 52-week high of $118.35 — deep drawdown territory. 11 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $131.64 (implying +45% 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 31% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which.
Risk
D/E 3.49 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer.
LVSLas Vegas Sands Corp.
Why now
Resorts & Casinos · market cap $30.5b. Down 33% from 52-week high of $70.45 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +18%, comfortably above the S&P median. 19 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $59.07 (implying +26% upside).
Moat
Net margin 13% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. FCF converts 157% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Down 33% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up.
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 CHDN and LVS diverge
On the headline score the gap is 16.4 points in favor of LVS. The widest single difference is Quality, where LVS leads by 29.6 points.
- QualityCHDN 62.7 · LVS 92.3LVS +29.6
- ValueCHDN 43.7 · LVS 68.0LVS +24.3
- GrowthCHDN 50.0 · LVS 50.0level
Pillars run 0–100 against sector peers, so a 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.