COMPARE · Data as of August 12, 2026
ARW vs CNXN
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. ARW scored 64.3, CNXN scored 44.2 — ARW leads.
Compare another set
ARW
Arrow Electronics, Inc.
64.3
$210.30 · $10.7B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
20.1
ARW leads
CNXN
PC Connection, Inc.
44.2
$80.26 · $2.0B
fundamentals as of
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
ARW
stronger →← stronger
CNXN
56
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
62
81
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
56
58
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
25
ARW is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
ARW
CNXN
$825mC+
FCF
$34mC-
+26.1%A-
Rev
+3.2%C+
0.31B
D/E
0.01A
13.2xA
P/E
21.3xB+
0.95B+
PEG
2.24C
Winner per row is the stronger grade in our model; a tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
ARW
CNXN
14% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
231% above
~4%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~36%/yr
+5%
1-yr DCF upside
-71%
+16%
5-yr DCF upside
-70%
+32%
10-yr DCF upside
-67%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
ARW
No notable signals flagged.
CNXN
Why this score
- Raising its dividend
The companies
ARWArrow Electronics, Inc.
Why now
Electronics & Computer Distribution · market cap $10.7b. 11% off the 52-week high of $237.33. Revenue growing +26% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.95 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 4 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $235.00 (implying +12% 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, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Net margin 2.3% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
CNXNPC Connection, Inc.
Why now
Electronics & Computer Distribution · market cap $2.0b. 9% off the 52-week high of $88.31.
Moat
ROE 10% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere.
Risk
Net margin 3.2% 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 ARW and CNXN diverge
On the headline score the gap is 20.1 points in favour of ARW. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- ValueARW 58.2 · CNXN 25.0ARW +33.2
- GrowthARW 81.0 · CNXN 55.5ARW +25.5
- QualityARW 56.3 · CNXN 62.2CNXN +5.9
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.