Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. DAR scored 63.6, JBS scored 43.5 — DAR leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. DAR's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but JBS's are as of December 2025 — a 6-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
DAR
Darling Ingredients Inc.
Packaged Foods · Quality-Growth
63.6
$60.26 · $9.5B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
20.1
DAR leads
JBS
JBS N.V.
Packaged Foods · Quality-Growth
43.5
$12.98 · $13.9B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestJBS12.1x
Fastest growthJBS+11.7%
Strongest balance sheetDAR0.79
Highest qualityJBS72 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueDAR-30%
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)
DAR
stronger →← stronger
JBS
63
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
72
60
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
38
68
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
30
DAR is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
DAR
JBS
$881mC+
FCF
$833mC+
+7.4%B
Rev
+11.7%B
0.79B
D/E
2.83D
16.2xB+
P/E
12.1xA
4.31D
PEG
—
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
DAR
JBS
30% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
38% above
~-3%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~7%/yr
+37%
1-yr DCF upside
-19%
+44%
5-yr DCF upside
-28%
+53%
10-yr DCF upside
-38%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
DAR
No notable signals flagged.
JBS
Why this score
Short track record
The companies
DARDarling Ingredients Inc.
Packaged Foods · $60.26 · beta 1.05
Why now
Packaged Foods · market cap $9.5b. 14% off the 52-week high of $69.98. 12 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $81.58 (implying +35% upside).
Moat
ROE 12% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 147% 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.
JBSJBS N.V.
Packaged Foods · $12.98
Why now
Packaged Foods · market cap $13.9b. Down 30% from 52-week high of $18.65 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +12%, comfortably above the S&P median. 15 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $18.91 (implying +46% upside).
Moat
ROE 23% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately.
Risk
D/E 2.83 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Down 30% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Dividend payout 93% of earnings on a 7.8% yield — distribution coverage is thin; one earnings stumble could force a dividend cut.
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 DAR and JBS diverge
On the headline score the gap is 20.1 points in favor of DAR. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueDAR 67.9 · JBS 29.8DAR +38.1
GrowthDAR 60.2 · JBS 38.5DAR +21.7
QualityDAR 63.0 · JBS 71.7JBS +8.7
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 DAR or JBS the better stock?
DAR scores higher: DAR 63.6, JBS 43.5 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 DAR and JBS differ most?
The widest gap is value, where DAR leads by 38 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 DAR and JBS 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.