COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
BCO vs CXW
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. BCO scored 68.1, CXW scored 51.4 — BCO leads.
Compare another set
BCO
Brinks Company (The)
68.1
$111.43 · $4.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
16.7
BCO leads
CXW
CoreCivic, Inc.
51.4
$34.01 · $3.4B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestBCO25.8x
- Fastest growthCXW+12.7%
- Highest qualityBCO67 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueBCO-17%
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)
BCO
stronger →← stronger
CXW
67
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
48
63
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
76
75
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
37
BCO is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
BCO
CXW
$313mC
FCF
$57mC-
+8.1%B
Rev
+12.7%B+
—
D/E
0.95C+
25.8xB
P/E
27.0xB
1.16B+
PEG
1.06B+
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
BCO
CXW
17% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
68% above
~4%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~27%/yr
+6%
1-yr DCF upside
-55%
+20%
5-yr DCF upside
-40%
+43%
10-yr DCF upside
-8%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
BCO
No notable signals flagged.
CXW
Why this score
- Buying back stock
The companies
BCOBrinks Company (The)
Why now
Security & Protection Services · market cap $4.6b. 18% off the 52-week high of $136.37.
Moat
ROE 58% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 173% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Net margin 3.3% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
CXWCoreCivic, Inc.
Why now
Security & Protection Services · market cap $3.4b. Trading near 52-week high of $34.86 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. Revenue growing +13%, comfortably above the S&P median. 5 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $41.80 (implying +23% 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
Trading within 2% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction.
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 BCO and CXW diverge
On the headline score the gap is 16.7 points in favor of BCO. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- ValueBCO 74.9 · CXW 37.2BCO +37.7
- QualityBCO 66.6 · CXW 48.1BCO +18.5
- GrowthBCO 63.4 · CXW 75.8CXW +12.4
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.