Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. EME scored 72.5, IESC scored 65.2 — EME leads.
Compare another set
EME
EMCOR Group, Inc.
Engineering & Construction · Quality-Growth
72.5
$789.45 · $34.8B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
7.3
EME leads
IESC
IES Holdings, Inc.
Engineering & Construction · Quality-Growth
65.2
$297.52 · $12.6B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestEME24.6x
Fastest growthIESC+16.9%
Strongest balance sheetIESC0.06
Highest qualityEME84 / 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)
EME
stronger →← stronger
IESC
84
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
81
88
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
86
52
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
39
EME is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
EME
IESC
$1.2bC+
FCF
$228mC
+16.6%B+
Rev
+16.9%B+
0.13A-
D/E
0.06A
24.6xB
P/E
26.4xB
0.32A
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
EME
IESC
75% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
326% above
~24%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~55%/yr
-50%
1-yr DCF upside
-81%
-43%
5-yr DCF upside
-77%
-31%
10-yr DCF upside
-70%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
EME
Why this score
Durable high returns
IESC
Why this score
Durable high returns
The companies
EMEEMCOR Group, Inc.
Engineering & Construction · $789.45 · beta 1.12
Why now
Engineering & Construction · market cap $34.8b. 17% off the 52-week high of $951.96. Revenue growing +17%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.32 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 7 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $1,033 (implying +31% upside).
Moat
ROE 40% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which.
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.
IESCIES Holdings, Inc.
Engineering & Construction · $297.52 · beta 1.77
Why now
Engineering & Construction · market cap $12.6b. Down 27% from 52-week high of $408.25 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +17%, comfortably above the S&P median.
Moat
ROE 45% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which.
Risk
Beta 1.77 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return.
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 EME and IESC diverge
On the headline score the gap is 7.3 points in favor of EME. The widest single difference is Value, where EME leads by 12.0 points.
ValueEME 51.5 · IESC 39.5EME +12.0
QualityEME 83.8 · IESC 81.3level
GrowthEME 88.1 · IESC 86.1level
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 EME or IESC the better stock?
EME scores higher: EME 72.5, IESC 65.2 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 EME and IESC differ most?
The widest gap is value, where EME leads by 12 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. The other two pillars are close enough to call level, so this is the one place they genuinely separate.
How are EME and IESC 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.