Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. DOO scored 47.8, ALV scored 63.2 — ALV leads.
Compare another set
DOO
BRP Inc.
Recreational Vehicles · Quality-Growth
47.8
$52.96 · $3.8B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
15.4
ALV leads
ALV
Autoliv, Inc.
Auto Parts · Quality-Growth
63.2
$109.76 · $8.0B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestALV12.9x
Fastest growthDOO+6.8%
Strongest balance sheetALV0.88
Highest qualityALV81 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueDOO-69%
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)
DOO
stronger →← stronger
ALV
67
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
81
55
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
34
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
63
ALV is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
DOO
ALV
$836mC+
FCF
$757mC+
+6.8%C+
Rev
+5.9%C+
8.95D
D/E
0.88B
46.9xD
P/E
12.9xA-
0.94B+
PEG
0.85B+
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
DOO
ALV
69% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
14% below
~-23%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~2%/yr
+215%
1-yr DCF upside
+10%
+227%
5-yr DCF upside
+16%
+246%
10-yr DCF upside
+24%
These two disagree on this pair: the Value pillar ranks cheapness against sector peers, while price-vs-fair-value is an absolute read. A name can be the better value in its sector and still the dearer one on cash flows.
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
DOO
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Foreign reporter (CAD)
ALV
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
Cyclical growth
The companies
DOOBRP Inc.
Recreational Vehicles · $52.96 · beta 1.10
Why now
Recreational Vehicles · market cap $3.8b. Down 35% from 52-week high of $81.89 — deep drawdown territory. PEG 0.94 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 4 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $70.66 (implying +33% upside).
Moat
ROE 27% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income.
Risk
D/E 8.95 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Down 35% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Trailing P/E 47x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
ALVAutoliv, Inc.
Auto Parts · $109.76 · beta 1.40
Why now
Auto Parts · market cap $8.0b. 17% off the 52-week high of $132.17. PEG 0.85 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 16 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $134.31 (implying +22% upside).
Moat
ROE 26% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 118% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
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 DOO and ALV diverge
On the headline score the gap is 15.4 points in favor of ALV. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueDOO 34.5 · ALV 62.6ALV +28.1
QualityDOO 67.2 · ALV 80.6ALV +13.4
GrowthDOO 55.1 · ALV 50.0DOO +5.1
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 ALV or DOO the better stock?
ALV scores higher: ALV 63.2, DOO 47.8 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 ALV and DOO differ most?
The widest gap is value, where ALV leads by 28 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 ALV and DOO 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.