Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. FN scored 65.7, CLS scored 68.4 — CLS leads.
Compare another set
FN
Fabrinet
Electronic Components · Quality-Growth
65.7
$486.28 · $17.4B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
2.7
CLS leads
CLS
Celestica Inc.
Electronic Components · Quality-Growth
68.4
$362.16 · $45.7B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestFN37.3x
Fastest growthFN+35.7%
Strongest balance sheetFN0.00
Highest qualityCLS74 / 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)
FN
stronger →← stronger
CLS
68
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
74
96
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
95
43
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
45
CLS is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
FN
CLS
$4mC-
FCF
$519mC+
+35.7%A
Rev
+28.5%A-
0.00A
D/E
0.40B
37.3xB
P/E
37.6xB
1.89C+
PEG
1.00B+
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
FN
CLS
23148% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
376% above
>60%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~60%/yr
-100%
1-yr DCF upside
-84%
-100%
5-yr DCF upside
-79%
-99%
10-yr DCF upside
-70%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
FN
Why this score
Durable high returns
CLS
Why this score
Durable high returns
The companies
FNFabrinet
Electronic Components · $486.28 · beta 1.22
Why now
Electronic Components · market cap $17.4b. Down 35% from 52-week high of $748.89 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +36% — in hypergrowth territory. 9 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $734.11 (implying +51% upside).
Moat
ROE 19% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately.
Risk
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 37x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
CLSCelestica Inc.
Electronic Components · $362.16 · beta 1.32
Why now
Electronic Components · market cap $45.7b. Down 24% from 52-week high of $474.03 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +28% — in hypergrowth territory. 18 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $473.91 (implying +31% upside).
Moat
ROE 53% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which.
Risk
Trailing P/E 38x 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 FN and CLS diverge
On the headline score the gap is 2.7 points in favor of CLS. The widest single difference is Quality, where CLS leads by 6.1 points.
QualityFN 68.3 · CLS 74.4CLS +6.1
ValueFN 43.4 · CLS 45.5level
GrowthFN 95.7 · CLS 94.7level
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 CLS or FN the better stock?
CLS scores higher: CLS 68.4, FN 65.7 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 CLS and FN differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where CLS leads by 6 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 CLS and FN 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.