Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. DAR scored 63.6, MDLZ scored 48.4 — DAR leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. DAR's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but MDLZ's are as of March 2026 — a 3-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
15.2
DAR leads
MDLZ
Mondelez International, Inc.
Confectioners · Quality-Growth
48.4
$60.41 · $77.1B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestDAR16.2x
Fastest growthDAR+7.4%
Strongest balance sheetDAR0.79
Highest qualityDAR63 / 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
MDLZ
63
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
60
60
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
59
68
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
32
DAR is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
DAR
MDLZ
$881mC+
FCF
$2.6bB
+7.4%B
Rev
+5.8%C+
0.79B
D/E
0.83B
16.2xB+
P/E
22.3xC+
4.31D
PEG
0.90B+
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
MDLZ
30% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
85% above
~-3%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~22%/yr
+37%
1-yr DCF upside
-49%
+44%
5-yr DCF upside
-46%
+53%
10-yr DCF upside
-42%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
DAR
No notable signals flagged.
MDLZ
Why this score
Raising its dividend
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.
MDLZMondelez International, Inc.
Confectioners · $60.41 · beta 0.39
Why now
Confectioners · market cap $77.1b. 9% off the 52-week high of $66.65. PEG 0.90 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 22 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $69.00 (implying +14% upside).
Moat
ROE 13% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. $77.1b market cap gives the company enough scale to absorb fixed costs that subscale competitors can't, without yet being so large that growth has to come from acquisition.
Risk
Value re-rating depends on a catalyst. Without one — analyst day, divestiture, margin recovery, capital return — the stock can stay cheap on these multiples for years.
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 MDLZ diverge
On the headline score the gap is 15.2 points in favor of DAR. The widest single difference is Value, where DAR leads by 35.6 points.
ValueDAR 67.9 · MDLZ 32.3DAR +35.6
QualityDAR 63.0 · MDLZ 59.7DAR +3.3
GrowthDAR 60.2 · MDLZ 58.8level
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 MDLZ the better stock?
DAR scores higher: DAR 63.6, MDLZ 48.4 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 MDLZ differ most?
The widest gap is value, where DAR leads by 36 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. DAR also leads quality, while growth is effectively level between them.
How are DAR and MDLZ 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.