Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CMG scored 59.1, LVS scored 73.5 — LVS leads.
Compare another set
CMG
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
Restaurants · Quality-Growth
59.1
$31.59 · $40.0B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
14.4
LVS leads
LVS
Las Vegas Sands Corp.
Resorts & Casinos · Quality-Growth
73.5
$36.17 · $23.4B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestLVS14.1x
Fastest growthLVS+18.1%
Highest qualityLVS90 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueLVS-65%
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)
CMG
stronger →← stronger
LVS
83
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
90
59
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
42
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
88
LVS is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CMG
LVS
$1.6bC+
FCF
$2.7bB
+5.4%C+
Rev
+18.1%B+
2.46C
D/E
—
29.0xC
P/E
14.1xB+
1.46B
PEG
0.77A-
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
CMG
LVS
51% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
65% below
~16%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-13%/yr
-37%
1-yr DCF upside
+138%
-34%
5-yr DCF upside
+186%
-28%
10-yr DCF upside
+276%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
CMG
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
LVS
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
Cyclical growth
The companies
CMGChipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
Restaurants · $31.59 · beta 0.96
Why now
Restaurants · market cap $40.0b. Down 26% from 52-week high of $42.82 — deep drawdown territory. 31 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $43.76 (implying +39% upside).
Moat
ROE 50% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 111% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
D/E 2.46 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer.
LVSLas Vegas Sands Corp.
Resorts & Casinos · $36.17 · beta 0.77
Why now
Resorts & Casinos · market cap $23.4b. Down 49% from 52-week high of $70.45 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +18%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.77 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 19 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $58.65 (implying +62% 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.
Risk
Down 49% 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
CMG leads LVS by 0.1 points (68.6 to 68.5). A contrarian could still prefer LVS, which trades about 49% below our DCF fair value — a margin of safety the score doesn't reward. All screen as growth-type names but sit in different sectors (Restaurants versus Resorts & Casinos), so their grades are relative to different peer sets.
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 CMG and LVS diverge
On the headline score the gap is 14.4 points in favor of LVS. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueCMG 42.5 · LVS 88.2LVS +45.7
GrowthCMG 58.6 · LVS 50.0CMG +8.6
QualityCMG 83.1 · LVS 90.1LVS +7.0
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 LVS or CMG the better stock?
LVS scores higher: LVS 73.5, CMG 59.1 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 LVS and CMG differ most?
The widest gap is value, where LVS leads by 46 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 LVS and CMG 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.