COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
DVA vs PACS
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. DVA scored 68.9, PACS scored 70.7 — PACS leads.
Compare another set
DVA
DaVita Inc.
68.9
$173.82 · $11.1B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
1.8
PACS leads
PACS
PACS Group, Inc.
70.7
$44.25 · $7.0B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestDVA14.7x
- Fastest growthPACS+15.2%
- Highest qualityDVA69 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueDVA-67%
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)
DVA
stronger →← stronger
PACS
69
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
63
68
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
90
70
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
63
DVA is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
DVA
PACS
$1.6bC+
FCF
$121mC
+6.4%C+
Rev
+15.2%B+
—
D/E
3.05D
14.7xA-
P/E
25.9xB
0.55A-
PEG
1.19B+
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
DVA
PACS
67% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
252% above
~-17%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~38%/yr
+165%
1-yr DCF upside
-73%
+207%
5-yr DCF upside
-72%
+282%
10-yr DCF upside
-69%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
DVA
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Durable high returns
PACS
Why this score
- Short track record
The companies
DVADaVita Inc.
Why now
Medical Care Facilities · market cap $11.1b. Down 30% from 52-week high of $247.49 — deep drawdown territory. PEG 0.55 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 7 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $218.43 (implying +26% upside).
Moat
FCF converts 136% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
ROE -154% is below the long-run sustainable threshold of ~10% — capital efficiency would need to improve for the equity base to compound at the market rate.
PACSPACS Group, Inc.
Why now
Medical Care Facilities · market cap $7.0b. 11% off the 52-week high of $49.49. Revenue growing +15%, comfortably above the S&P median. 5 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $59.20 (implying +34% upside).
Moat
ROE 24% sits above Buffett's preferred 15% threshold — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately.
Risk
D/E 3.05 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Net margin 4.9% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
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 DVA and PACS diverge
On the headline score the gap is 1.8 points in favor of PACS. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- GrowthDVA 67.8 · PACS 89.7PACS +21.9
- ValueDVA 69.9 · PACS 62.7DVA +7.2
- QualityDVA 68.9 · PACS 62.8DVA +6.1
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.