Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. EMR scored 39.8, VRT scored 74.1 — VRT leads.
Compare another set
EMR
Emerson Electric Co.
Specialty Industrial Machinery · Quality-Growth
39.8
$161.83 · $90.3B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
34.3
VRT leads
VRT
Vertiv Holdings Co
Electrical Equipment & Parts · Quality-Growth
74.1
$242.78 · $93.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestEMR35.4x
Fastest growthVRT+26.2%
Strongest balance sheetEMR0.68
Highest qualityVRT86 / 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)
EMR
stronger →← stronger
VRT
66
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
86
58
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
94
17
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
50
VRT is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
EMR
VRT
$3.5bB
FCF
$2.9bB
+4.8%C+
Rev
+26.2%A-
0.68B
D/E
0.70B
35.4xC+
P/E
54.9xD
1.83C+
PEG
0.82B+
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
EMR
VRT
91% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
124% above
~22%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~38%/yr
-50%
1-yr DCF upside
-65%
-48%
5-yr DCF upside
-55%
-45%
10-yr DCF upside
-37%
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.
Specialty Industrial Machinery · market cap $90.3b. Trading near 52-week high of $166.35 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. 28 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $174.21 (implying +8% upside).
Moat
Net margin 14% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 13% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 134% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Trading within 3% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. Trailing P/E 35x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
VRTVertiv Holdings Co
Electrical Equipment & Parts · $242.78 · beta 2.05
Why now
Electrical Equipment & Parts · market cap $93.5b. Down 36% from 52-week high of $379.94 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +26% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.82 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 28 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $337.43 (implying +39% upside).
Moat
Net margin 15% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 36% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 169% of net income, helped by cash released from working capital ($1.1b) that doesn't repeat every year.
Risk
Trailing P/E 54.9x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Down 36% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 2.05 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 EMR and VRT diverge
On the headline score the gap is 34.3 points in favor of VRT. The widest single difference is Growth, where VRT leads by 36.6 points.
GrowthEMR 57.5 · VRT 94.1VRT +36.6
ValueEMR 16.6 · VRT 50.2VRT +33.6
QualityEMR 65.8 · VRT 86.2VRT +20.4
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 VRT or EMR the better stock?
VRT scores higher: VRT 74.1, EMR 39.8 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 VRT and EMR differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where VRT leads by 37 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. VRT leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are VRT and EMR 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.