COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
CTOS vs WLFC
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CTOS scored 43.3, WLFC scored 72.8 — WLFC leads.
Compare another set
CTOS
Custom Truck One Source, Inc.
43.3
$9.79 · $2.2B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
29.5
WLFC leads
WLFC
Willis Lease Finance Corp
72.8
$54.37 · $1.7B
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- Fastest growthWLFC+28.4%
- Strongest balance sheetCTOS3.12
- Highest qualityWLFC55 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueWLFC-77%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
CTOS
stronger →← stronger
WLFC
31
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
55
44
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
90
59
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
78
WLFC is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CTOS
WLFC
-$226mF
FCF
$239mC
+4.1%C+
Rev
+28.4%A-
3.12D
D/E
4.12D
1.5xB+
P/S
—
0.79A-
PEG
—
—
P/E
14.4xB+
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
CTOS
WLFC
—
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
77% below
—
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~-19%/yr
—
1-yr DCF upside
+224%
—
5-yr DCF upside
+328%
—
10-yr DCF upside
+552%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
CTOS
No notable signals flagged.
WLFC
Why this score
- Raising its dividend
The companies
CTOSCustom Truck One Source, Inc.
Why now
Rental & Leasing Services · market cap $2.2b. 20% off the 52-week high of $12.23. PEG 0.79 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 6 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $13.33 (implying +36% upside).
Moat
Higher-variance name — the moat signals on the quantitative card are modest, so the durability case rests on execution (turning current growth into durable earnings power) or an un-monetized asset (IP / network effects / first-mover position) rather than an entrenched competitive position.
Risk
D/E 3.12 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Free cash flow is negative (-$226m) — capital raises or debt issuance likely required; dilution / leverage risk. Trailing P/E 108.8x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating.
WLFCWillis Lease Finance Corp
Why now
Trading Companies & Distributors · market cap $1.7b. Down 33% from 52-week high of $81.54 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +28% — in hypergrowth territory.
Moat
ROE 12% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere.
Risk
D/E 4.12 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Down 33% 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
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 CTOS and WLFC diverge
On the headline score the gap is 29.5 points in favor of WLFC. The widest single difference is Growth, where WLFC leads by 45.8 points.
- GrowthCTOS 44.4 · WLFC 90.2WLFC +45.8
- QualityCTOS 31.1 · WLFC 54.8WLFC +23.7
- ValueCTOS 58.6 · WLFC 78.2WLFC +19.6
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.