COMPARE · Data as of August 24, 2026
APH vs CLS
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. APH scored 68.7, CLS scored 67.2 — APH leads.
Compare another set
APH
Amphenol Corporation
68.7
$157.01 · $193.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
1.5
APH leads
CLS
Celestica, Inc.
67.2
$296.55 · $37.4B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestCLS36.3x
- Fastest growthAPH+54.2%
- Strongest balance sheetCLS0.40
- Highest qualityAPH78 / 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)
APH
stronger →← stronger
CLS
78
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
74
95
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
95
43
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
43
APH is stronger on 1 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
APH
CLS
$4.7bB
FCF
$519mC+
+54.2%A
Rev
+47.3%A
1.20C
D/E
0.40B
39.3xB
P/E
36.3xB
1.09B+
PEG
1.00B+
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
APH
CLS
128% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
336% above
~35%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~57%/yr
-65%
1-yr DCF upside
-82%
-56%
5-yr DCF upside
-77%
-40%
10-yr DCF upside
-67%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
APH
Why this score
- Raising its dividend
- Durable high returns
CLS
Why this score
- Durable high returns
The companies
APHAmphenol Corporation
Why now
Electronic Components · market cap $193.6b. 12% off the 52-week high of $178.52. Revenue growing +54% — in hypergrowth territory. 17 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $191.88 (implying +22% upside).
Moat
Net margin 18% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 33% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. $193.6b 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
Trailing P/E 39x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
CLSCelestica, Inc.
Why now
Electronic Components · market cap $37.4b. Down 37% from 52-week high of $474.03 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +47% — in hypergrowth territory. 17 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $473.26 (implying +60% upside).
Moat
ROE 45% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which.
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 1.52 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 36x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
CLS leads APH by 0.4 points (67.0 to 66.6), its sharpest advantage coming in D/E (grade B). A contrarian could still prefer APH for its stronger FCF (grade B).
Our AI analyst is busy right now, so this verdict is drawn directly from the pillars, grades and DCF above.
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 APH and CLS diverge
On the headline score the gap is 1.5 points in favor of APH. The widest single difference is Quality, where APH leads by 4.6 points.
- QualityAPH 78.5 · CLS 73.9APH +4.6
- GrowthAPH 95.2 · CLS 94.8level
- ValueAPH 43.5 · CLS 43.4level
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.