Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CON scored 72.0, AVAH scored 76.3 — AVAH leads.
Compare another set
CON
Concentra Group Holdings Parent, Inc.
Medical Care Facilities · Quality-Growth
72
$37.19 · $4.7B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
4.3
AVAH leads
AVAH
Aveanna Healthcare Holdings Inc.
Medical Care Facilities · Quality-Growth
76.3
$12.25 · $2.7B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestAVAH9.7x
Fastest growthAVAH+19.5%
Strongest balance sheetCON4.23
Highest qualityCON74 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueCON-29%
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)
CON
stronger →← stronger
AVAH
74
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
60
81
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
89
70
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
84
AVAH is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CON
AVAH
$267mC
FCF
$154mC
+13.9%B+
Rev
+19.5%B+
4.23D
D/E
5.23D
24.0xB+
P/E
9.7xA
2.08C
PEG
0.96B+
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
CON
AVAH
29% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
64% above
~0%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~21%/yr
+27%
1-yr DCF upside
-44%
+41%
5-yr DCF upside
-39%
+64%
10-yr DCF upside
-33%
These two disagree on this pair: the Value pillar ranks cheapness against sector peers, while price-vs-fair-value is an absolute read. A name can be the better value in its sector and still the dearer one on cash flows.
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
CON
Why this score
Durable high returns
Short track record
AVAH
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
The companies
CONConcentra Group Holdings Parent, Inc.
Medical Care Facilities · $37.19 · beta 0.63
Why now
Medical Care Facilities · market cap $4.7b. Trading near 52-week high of $37.29 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. Revenue growing +14%, comfortably above the S&P median. 8 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $41.00 (implying +10% upside).
Moat
ROE 47% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 137% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
D/E 4.23 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Trading within 0% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction.
AVAHAveanna Healthcare Holdings Inc.
Medical Care Facilities · $12.25 · beta 1.95
Why now
Medical Care Facilities · market cap $2.7b. 17% off the 52-week high of $14.71. Revenue growing +20%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.96 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 10 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $14.85 (implying +21% upside).
Moat
ROE 96% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which.
Risk
D/E 5.23 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Beta 1.95 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return.
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 CON and AVAH diverge
On the headline score the gap is 4.3 points in favor of AVAH. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
QualityCON 74.2 · AVAH 59.6CON +14.6
ValueCON 69.6 · AVAH 83.8AVAH +14.2
GrowthCON 81.3 · AVAH 88.9AVAH +7.6
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 AVAH or CON the better stock?
AVAH scores higher: AVAH 76.3, CON 72.0 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 AVAH and CON differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where CON leads by 15 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 AVAH and CON 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.