Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CTS scored 56.8, SANM scored 61.5 — SANM leads.
Compare another set
CTS
CTS Corporation
Electronic Components · Quality-Growth
56.8
$57.25 · $1.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
4.7
SANM leads
SANM
Sanmina Corporation
Electronic Components · Quality-Growth
61.5
$217.49 · $11.7B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestCTS24.0x
Fastest growthSANM+58.6%
Strongest balance sheetCTS0.16
Highest qualityCTS73 / 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)
CTS
stronger →← stronger
SANM
73
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
51
60
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
83
41
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
55
SANM is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CTS
SANM
$91mC-
FCF
$594mC+
+5.2%C+
Rev
+58.6%A
0.16B+
D/E
0.88C+
24.0xB+
P/E
38.9xB
1.24B
PEG
0.72A-
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
CTS
SANM
16% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
54% above
~8%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~22%/yr
-15%
1-yr DCF upside
-43%
-14%
5-yr DCF upside
-35%
-12%
10-yr DCF upside
-22%
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
CTS
Why this score
Buying back stock
SANM
No notable signals flagged.
The companies
CTSCTS Corporation
Electronic Components · $57.25 · beta 0.99
Why now
Electronic Components · market cap $1.6b. 18% off the 52-week high of $69.55. 3 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $70.67 (implying +23% upside).
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 131% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
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.
SANMSanmina Corporation
Electronic Components · $217.49 · beta 1.61
Why now
Electronic Components · market cap $11.7b. Down 25% from 52-week high of $288.68 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +59% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.72 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 4 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $260.00 (implying +20% upside).
Moat
ROE 11% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 193% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Beta 1.61 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 39x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. Net margin 2.4% 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 CTS and SANM diverge
On the headline score the gap is 4.7 points in favor of SANM. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
GrowthCTS 60.5 · SANM 83.2SANM +22.7
QualityCTS 73.1 · SANM 51.3CTS +21.8
ValueCTS 41.4 · SANM 54.6SANM +13.2
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 SANM or CTS the better stock?
SANM scores higher: SANM 61.5, CTS 56.8 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 SANM and CTS differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where SANM leads by 23 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 SANM and CTS 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.