COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
CXW vs GEO
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CXW scored 51.4, GEO scored 45.0 — CXW leads.
Compare another set
CXW
CoreCivic, Inc.
51.4
$34.01 · $3.4B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
6.4
CXW leads
GEO
Geo Group Inc (The) REIT
45
$32.71 · $4.3B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestGEO15.4x
- Fastest growthGEO+15.3%
- Strongest balance sheetCXW0.95
- Highest qualityGEO62 / 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)
CXW
stronger →← stronger
GEO
48
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
62
76
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
46
37
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
32
CXW is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CXW
GEO
$57mC-
FCF
$26mC-
+12.7%B+
Rev
+15.3%B+
0.95C+
D/E
1.06C+
27.0xB
P/E
15.4xA-
1.06B+
PEG
1.82C+
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
GEO
68% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
471% above
~27%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
>60%/yr
-55%
1-yr DCF upside
-87%
-40%
5-yr DCF upside
-82%
-8%
10-yr DCF upside
-73%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
CXW
Why this score
- Buying back stock
GEO
Why this score
- Buying back stock
The companies
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.
GEOGeo Group Inc (The) REIT
Why now
Security & Protection Services · market cap $4.3b. Trading near 52-week high of $32.91 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. Revenue growing +15%, comfortably above the S&P median. 4 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $37.75 (implying +15% upside).
Moat
ROE 19% sits above Buffett's preferred 15% threshold — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately.
Risk
Trading within 1% 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 CXW and GEO diverge
On the headline score the gap is 6.4 points in favor of CXW. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- GrowthCXW 75.8 · GEO 46.0CXW +29.8
- QualityCXW 48.1 · GEO 62.4GEO +14.3
- ValueCXW 37.2 · GEO 31.8CXW +5.4
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.