Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CHWY scored 63.0, AMZN scored 67.9 — AMZN leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. CHWY's fundamentals are as of July 2026, but AMZN's are as of March 2026 — a 4-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
CHWY
Chewy, Inc.
Internet Retail · Quality-Growth
63
$18.95 · $7.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
4.9
AMZN leads
AMZN
Amazon.com, Inc.
Internet Retail · Quality-Growth
67.9
$262.43 · $2.8T
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthAMZN+12.4%
Strongest balance sheetAMZN0.46
Highest qualityCHWY73 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueCHWY-2%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
CHWY
stronger →← stronger
AMZN
73
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
63
71
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
86
48
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
58
AMZN is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CHWY
AMZN
$568mC+
FCF
-$2.5bF
+6.2%C+
Rev
+12.4%B+
3.13C
D/E
0.46B+
29.2xC
P/E
—
0.33A
PEG
1.48B
—
P/S
3.6xC
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
CHWY
AMZN
2% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
—
~8%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
—
-8%
1-yr DCF upside
—
+2%
5-yr DCF upside
—
+17%
10-yr DCF upside
—
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
CHWY
Why this score
Durable high returns
AMZN
No notable signals flagged.
The companies
CHWYChewy, Inc.
Internet Retail · $18.95 · beta 1.38
Why now
Internet Retail · market cap $7.6b. Down 52% from 52-week high of $39.70 — deep drawdown territory. PEG 0.33 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 22 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $28.64 (implying +51% upside).
Moat
ROE 72% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of stock-based pay ($298m) — a real cost to shareholders, paid in shares rather than cash.
Risk
D/E 3.13 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Down 52% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Net margin 2.1% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
AMZNAmazon.com, Inc.
Internet Retail · $262.43 · beta 1.46
Why now
Internet Retail · market cap $2.8T. 9% off the 52-week high of $287.20. Revenue growing +12%, comfortably above the S&P median. 58 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $331.53 (implying +26% upside).
Moat
Net margin 17% 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. $2.8T market cap places it among the largest companies in the sector — distribution, R&D, and customer-acquisition costs amortize across a base peers can't replicate.
Risk
Free cash flow is negative (-$2.5b) — capital raises or debt issuance likely required; dilution / leverage risk. Beta 1.46 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. E-commerce competition — Amazon, Walmart, Shein, and Temu have each forced the rest of the category to compete on price, fulfillment speed, or assortment; sustaining margins requires one of those being structurally defended.
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 CHWY and AMZN diverge
On the headline score the gap is 4.9 points in favor of AMZN. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
GrowthCHWY 70.5 · AMZN 86.0AMZN +15.5
QualityCHWY 73.3 · AMZN 62.7CHWY +10.6
ValueCHWY 48.4 · AMZN 58.2AMZN +9.8
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 AMZN or CHWY the better stock?
AMZN scores higher: AMZN 67.9, CHWY 63.0 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.
Where do AMZN and CHWY differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where AMZN leads by 16 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 AMZN and CHWY 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.