Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. GEO scored 58.3, CXW scored 54.1 — GEO leads.
Compare another set
GEO
The GEO Group, Inc.
Security & Protection Services · Quality-Growth
58.3
$31.13 · $4.1B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
4.2
GEO leads
CXW
CoreCivic, Inc.
Security & Protection Services · Quality-Growth
54.1
$32.93 · $3.3B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestGEO14.6x
Fastest growthCXW+12.7%
Strongest balance sheetCXW0.95
Highest qualityGEO62 / 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)
GEO
stronger →← stronger
CXW
62
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
54
70
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
76
46
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
39
GEO is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
GEO
CXW
$26mC-
FCF
$57mC-
+8.6%B
Rev
+12.7%B+
1.06C+
D/E
0.95C+
14.6xA-
P/E
26.3xB
1.37B
PEG
1.06B+
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
GEO
CXW
670% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
107% above
>60%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~26%/yr
-88%
1-yr DCF upside
-57%
-87%
5-yr DCF upside
-52%
-86%
10-yr DCF upside
-42%
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.
Security & Protection Services · market cap $4.1b. 6% off the 52-week high of $33.17. 4 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $39.00 (implying +25% upside).
Moat
ROE 20% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately.
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.
Security & Protection Services · market cap $3.3b. 10% off the 52-week high of $36.55. Revenue growing +13%, comfortably above the S&P median. 5 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $41.80 (implying +27% upside).
Moat
Moat signals from the quantitative card are modest — profitability and capital efficiency are middle-of-pack. The thesis here depends on softer factors (switching costs, brand, distribution, regulatory protection) not captured by the quality-growth screen.
Risk
Mature compounder — the risk is paying up for quality at a moment when growth is decelerating. Watch for sequential revenue + margin trends; the inflection from "compounder" to "ex-compounder" is hard to spot until the multiple already started compressing.
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 GEO and CXW diverge
On the headline score the gap is 4.2 points in favor of GEO. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
QualityGEO 62.1 · CXW 53.6GEO +8.5
ValueGEO 45.5 · CXW 38.8GEO +6.7
GrowthGEO 70.0 · CXW 75.8CXW +5.8
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 GEO or CXW the better stock?
GEO scores higher: GEO 58.3, CXW 54.1 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 GEO and CXW differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where GEO leads by 9 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. Neither name sweeps: they trade the lead across the three pillars, so the comparison is a trade-off rather than one being better on every measure.
How are GEO and CXW 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.