At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestMKSI41.4x
Fastest growthESE+27.0%
Strongest balance sheetESE0.09
Highest qualityESE68 / 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)
ESE
stronger →← stronger
MKSI
68
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
53
85
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
87
67
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
36
ESE is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
ESE
MKSI
$207mC
FCF
$455mC
+27.0%A-
Rev
+16.3%B+
0.09B+
D/E
1.40C
47.8xC+
P/E
41.4xC+
1.67C+
PEG
1.32B
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
ESE
MKSI
95% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
228% above
~25%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~45%/yr
-53%
1-yr DCF upside
-74%
-49%
5-yr DCF upside
-69%
-42%
10-yr DCF upside
-63%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Scientific & Technical Instruments · market cap $6.7b. Down 29% from 52-week high of $362.15 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +27% — in hypergrowth territory. 4 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $390.75 (implying +52% upside).
Moat
Net margin 24% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 19% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately.
Risk
Trailing P/E 48x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
Scientific & Technical Instruments · market cap $17.9b. Down 41% from 52-week high of $447.62 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +16%, comfortably above the S&P median. 14 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $410.86 (implying +55% upside).
Moat
ROE 15% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 103% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Down 41% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 2.02 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. Trailing P/E 41x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
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 ESE and MKSI diverge
On the headline score the gap is 18.1 points in favor of ESE. The widest single difference is Value, where ESE leads by 31.2 points.
ValueESE 67.1 · MKSI 35.9ESE +31.2
QualityESE 67.5 · MKSI 52.7ESE +14.8
GrowthESE 85.4 · MKSI 86.8level
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 ESE or MKSI the better stock?
ESE scores higher: ESE 72.9, MKSI 54.8 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 ESE and MKSI differ most?
The widest gap is value, where ESE leads by 31 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. ESE also leads quality, while growth is effectively level between them.
How are ESE and MKSI 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.