Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CLS scored 68.4, APH scored 70.9 — APH leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. CLS's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but APH'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.
CLS
Celestica Inc.
Electronic Components · Quality-Growth
68.4
$362.16 · $45.7B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
2.5
APH leads
APH
Amphenol Corporation
Electronic Components · Quality-Growth
70.9
$87.24 · $215.1B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestCLS37.6x
Fastest growthAPH+51.7%
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)
CLS
stronger →← stronger
APH
74
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
78
95
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
95
45
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
48
APH is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CLS
APH
$519mC+
FCF
$4.6bB
+28.5%A-
Rev
+51.7%A
0.40B
D/E
1.20C
37.6xB
P/E
43.6xC+
1.00B+
PEG
0.98B+
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
CLS
APH
376% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
142% above
~60%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~39%/yr
-84%
1-yr DCF upside
-68%
-79%
5-yr DCF upside
-59%
-70%
10-yr DCF upside
-41%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
CLS
Why this score
Durable high returns
APH
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
The companies
CLSCelestica Inc.
Electronic Components · $362.16 · beta 1.32
Why now
Electronic Components · market cap $45.7b. Down 24% from 52-week high of $474.03 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +28% — in hypergrowth territory. 18 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $473.91 (implying +31% upside).
Moat
ROE 53% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which.
Risk
Trailing P/E 38x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
APHAmphenol Corporation
Electronic Components · $87.24 · beta 1.24
Why now
Electronic Components · market cap $215.1b. Trading near 52-week high of $89.93 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. Revenue growing +52% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.98 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 19 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $101.66 (implying +17% 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 38% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. $215.1b 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
Trading within 3% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. Trailing P/E 44x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
The model slightly favors APH with a 66.4 score, driven by its stronger Quality pillar at 80 compared to CLS's 74. However, a contrarian might prefer CLS due to its more attractive P/E of 34.3x, earning a B grade versus APH's C+ grade at 40.9x. A key caveat for CLS is its implied 59% annual growth over ten years, suggesting significant market optimism is already priced in.
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 CLS and APH diverge
On the headline score the gap is 2.5 points in favor of APH. The widest single difference is Quality, where APH leads by 3.4 points.
QualityCLS 74.4 · APH 77.8APH +3.4
ValueCLS 45.5 · APH 48.2level
GrowthCLS 94.7 · APH 95.1level
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 APH or CLS the better stock?
APH scores higher: APH 70.9, CLS 68.4 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 APH and CLS differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where APH leads by 3 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. The other two pillars are close enough to call level, so this is the one place they genuinely separate.
How are APH and CLS 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.