Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CXW scored 54.1, BRC scored 69.3 — BRC leads.
Compare another set
CXW
CoreCivic, Inc.
Security & Protection Services · Quality-Growth
54.1
$32.93 · $3.3B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
15.2
BRC leads
BRC
Brady Corporation
Security & Protection Services · Quality-Growth
69.3
$85.35 · $4.0B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestBRC19.6x
Fastest growthCXW+12.7%
Strongest balance sheetBRC0.06
Highest qualityBRC78 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueBRC-16%
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)
CXW
stronger →← stronger
BRC
54
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
78
76
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
77
39
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
55
BRC is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CXW
BRC
$57mC-
FCF
$193mC
+12.7%B+
Rev
+9.8%B
0.95C+
D/E
0.06A
26.3xB
P/E
19.6xB+
1.06B+
PEG
1.67C+
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
CXW
BRC
107% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
16% below
~26%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~3%/yr
-57%
1-yr DCF upside
+9%
-52%
5-yr DCF upside
+18%
-42%
10-yr DCF upside
+33%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Security & Protection Services · market cap $3.3b. 10% off the 52-week high of $36.55. 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 +27% 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
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.
Security & Protection Services · market cap $4.0b. 14% off the 52-week high of $99.29.
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 16% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately.
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 CXW and BRC diverge
On the headline score the gap is 15.2 points in favor of BRC. The widest single difference is Quality, where BRC leads by 24.7 points.
QualityCXW 53.6 · BRC 78.3BRC +24.7
ValueCXW 38.8 · BRC 55.4BRC +16.6
GrowthCXW 75.8 · BRC 76.7level
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 BRC or CXW the better stock?
BRC scores higher: BRC 69.3, CXW 54.1 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 BRC and CXW differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where BRC leads by 25 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. BRC also leads value, while growth is effectively level between them.
How are BRC and CXW 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.