Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CWK scored 79.0, HHH scored 71.0 — CWK leads.
Compare another set
CWK
Cushman & Wakefield Limited
Real Estate Services · Financial strength
47.1Fin
$10.92 · $2.6B
fundamentals as of
Strength gap
9.9
HHH leads
HHH
Howard Hughes Holdings Inc.
Real Estate - Development · Financial strength
57Fin
$72.49 · $4.3B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthCWK+8.9%
Strongest balance sheetHHH1.35
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CWK
HHH
0.0%C
Yield
0.0%C
+8.9%B
Rev
-15.8%F
1.50C+
D/E
1.35C+
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.
The companies
CWKCushman & Wakefield Limited
Real Estate Services · $10.92 · beta 1.51
Why now
Real Estate Services · market cap $2.6b. Down 37% from 52-week high of $17.40 — deep drawdown territory. PEG 0.22 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 11 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $17.73 (implying +62% upside).
Moat
Moat signals from the quantitative card are modest — profitability and capital efficiency are middle-of-pack. The thesis here depends on softer factors (switching costs, brand, distribution, regulatory protection) not captured by the quality-growth screen.
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 1.51 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 38x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
HHHHoward Hughes Holdings Inc.
Real Estate - Development · $72.49 · beta 1.14
Why now
Real Estate - Development · market cap $4.3b. Down 20% from 52-week high of $91.07 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue -16% — in contraction; any catalyst that reverses this triggers re-rating. 3 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $89.67 (implying +24% 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.
Risk
Revenue contracting -16% — the operational turn is not yet visible in the top line. ROE 7% is below the long-run sustainable threshold of ~10% — capital efficiency would need to improve for the equity base to compound at the market rate.
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.
Common questions
Is CWK or HHH the better stock?
CWK scores higher: CWK 79.0, HHH 71.0 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.
How are CWK and HHH 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.