Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. GHC scored 53.3, MMM scored 38.2 — GHC leads.
Compare another set
GHC
Graham Holdings Company
Conglomerates · Quality-Growth
53.3
$1,173.16 · $5.0B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
15.1
GHC leads
MMM
3M Company
Conglomerates · Quality-Growth
38.2
$159.96 · $82.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestGHC9.5x
Fastest growthGHC+2.5%
Strongest balance sheetGHC0.30
Highest qualityMMM71 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueGHC-4%
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)
GHC
stronger →← stronger
MMM
53
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
71
54
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
43
52
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
18
GHC is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
GHC
MMM
$275mC
FCF
$4.0bB
+2.5%C
Rev
+2.3%C
0.30A-
D/E
4.38D
9.5xA
P/E
28.4xB
4.04D
PEG
1.54C+
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
GHC
MMM
4% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
51% above
~2%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~13%/yr
+6%
1-yr DCF upside
-32%
+4%
5-yr DCF upside
-34%
+2%
10-yr DCF upside
-35%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
GHC
No notable signals flagged.
MMM
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
The companies
GHCGraham Holdings Company
Conglomerates · $1,173.16 · beta 0.70
Why now
Conglomerates · market cap $5.0b. 7% off the 52-week high of $1262.35.
Moat
ROE 12% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere.
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.
MMM3M Company
Conglomerates · $159.96 · beta 1.06
Why now
Conglomerates · market cap $82.5b. 13% off the 52-week high of $184.90. 18 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $186.15 (implying +16% upside).
Moat
FCF converts 133% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash. $82.5b market cap gives the company enough scale to absorb fixed costs that subscale competitors can't, without yet being so large that growth has to come from acquisition.
Risk
D/E 4.38 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer.
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 GHC and MMM diverge
On the headline score the gap is 15.1 points in favor of GHC. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueGHC 52.2 · MMM 18.4GHC +33.8
QualityGHC 53.4 · MMM 71.1MMM +17.7
GrowthGHC 54.3 · MMM 42.7GHC +11.6
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 GHC or MMM the better stock?
GHC scores higher: GHC 53.3, MMM 38.2 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 GHC and MMM differ most?
The widest gap is value, where GHC leads by 34 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 GHC and MMM 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.