Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CNXN scored 37.3, ARW scored 66.4 — ARW leads.
Compare another set
CNXN
PC Connection, Inc.
Electronics & Computer Distribution · Quality-Growth
37.3
$92.81 · $2.3B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
29.1
ARW leads
ARW
Arrow Electronics, Inc.
Electronics & Computer Distribution · Quality-Growth
66.4
$227.90 · $11.6B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestARW14.6x
Fastest growthARW+26.1%
Strongest balance sheetCNXN0.01
Highest qualityCNXN62 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueARW-8%
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)
CNXN
stronger →← stronger
ARW
62
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
57
51
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
78
16
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
66
ARW is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CNXN
ARW
$34mC-
FCF
$825mC+
+2.5%C
Rev
+26.1%A-
0.01A
D/E
0.31B
24.6xB+
P/E
14.6xA-
2.00C+
PEG
0.95B+
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
CNXN
ARW
308% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
8% below
~39%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~5%/yr
-75%
1-yr DCF upside
-1%
-75%
5-yr DCF upside
+8%
-76%
10-yr DCF upside
+22%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
CNXN
Why this score
Raising its dividend
ARW
No notable signals flagged.
The companies
CNXNPC Connection, Inc.
Electronics & Computer Distribution · $92.81 · beta 0.81
Why now
Electronics & Computer Distribution · market cap $2.3b. Trading near 52-week high of $93.89 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety.
Moat
ROE 10% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere.
Risk
Trading within 1% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. Net margin 3.2% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
ARWArrow Electronics, Inc.
Electronics & Computer Distribution · $227.90 · beta 1.17
Why now
Electronics & Computer Distribution · market cap $11.6b. 9% off the 52-week high of $249.43. Revenue growing +26% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.95 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 4 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $235.00 (implying +3% upside).
Moat
ROE 12% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 102% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Net margin 2.3% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
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 CNXN and ARW diverge
On the headline score the gap is 29.1 points in favor of ARW. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueCNXN 16.1 · ARW 66.4ARW +50.3
GrowthCNXN 51.3 · ARW 77.8ARW +26.5
QualityCNXN 62.4 · ARW 56.6CNXN +5.8
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 ARW or CNXN the better stock?
ARW scores higher: ARW 66.4, CNXN 37.3 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 ARW and CNXN differ most?
The widest gap is value, where ARW leads by 50 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 ARW and CNXN 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.