COMPARE · Data as of August 24, 2026
CLS vs CTS
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CLS scored 67.2, CTS scored 63.9 — CLS leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. CLS's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but CTS's are as of March 2026 — a 3-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
CLS
Celestica, Inc.
67.2
$296.55 · $37.4B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
3.3
CLS leads
CTS
CTS Corporation
63.9
$56.32 · $1.6B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestCTS23.6x
- Fastest growthCLS+47.3%
- Strongest balance sheetCTS0.16
- Highest qualityCLS74 / 100
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)
CLS
stronger →← stronger
CTS
74
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
73
95
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
70
43
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
51
CLS is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CLS
CTS
$519mC+
FCF
$88mC-
+47.3%A
Rev
+7.8%B
0.40B
D/E
0.16B+
36.3xB
P/E
23.6xB+
1.00B+
PEG
1.44B
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
CLS
CTS
336% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
12% above
~57%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~9%/yr
-82%
1-yr DCF upside
-18%
-77%
5-yr DCF upside
-11%
-67%
10-yr DCF upside
+0%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
CLS
Why this score
- Durable high returns
CTS
Why this score
- Buying back stock
The companies
CLSCelestica, Inc.
Why now
Electronic Components · market cap $37.4b. Down 37% from 52-week high of $474.03 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +47% — in hypergrowth territory. 17 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $473.26 (implying +60% upside).
Moat
ROE 45% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which.
Risk
Down 37% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 1.52 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. Trailing P/E 36x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
CTSCTS Corporation
Why now
Electronic Components · market cap $1.6b. 19% off the 52-week high of $69.55.
Moat
Net margin 12% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 12% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 127% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Mature compounder — the risk is paying up for quality at a moment when growth is decelerating. Watch for sequential revenue + margin trends; the inflection from "compounder" to "ex-compounder" is hard to spot until the multiple already started compressing.
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 CLS and CTS diverge
On the headline score the gap is 3.3 points in favor of CLS. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- GrowthCLS 94.8 · CTS 70.4CLS +24.4
- ValueCLS 43.4 · CTS 50.7CTS +7.3
- QualityCLS 73.9 · CTS 73.2level
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.