COMPARE · Reviewed August 3, 2026
CTS vs JBL
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CTS scored 59.8, JBL scored 65.5 — JBL leads.
Compare another set
CTS
CTS Corporation
59.8
$65.23 · $1.9B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
5.7
JBL leads
JBL
Jabil Inc.
65.5
$318.39 · $33.4B
fundamentals as of
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
CTS
stronger →← stronger
JBL
73
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
72
70
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
72
42
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
55
JBL is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CTS
JBL
$88mC-
FCF
$1.3bC+
+7.8%B
Rev
+17.8%B+
0.16B+
D/E
2.97D
27.3xB+
P/E
39.8xB
1.65C+
PEG
0.82B+
Winner per row is the stronger grade in our model; a tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
CTS
JBL
30% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
36% above
~13%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~23%/yr
-29%
1-yr DCF upside
-44%
-23%
5-yr DCF upside
-26%
-13%
10-yr DCF upside
+8%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
CTS
Why this score
- Buying back stock
JBL
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Durable high returns
The companies
CTSCTS Corporation
Why now
Electronic Components · market cap $1.9b. 6% 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.
JBLJabil Inc.
Why now
Electronic Components · market cap $33.4b. Down 26% from 52-week high of $428.93 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +18%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.82 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 9 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $441.44 (implying +39% upside).
Moat
ROE 65% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 152% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
D/E 2.97 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Trailing P/E 40x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. Net margin 2.6% 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.