Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. GHC scored 53.3, PAM scored 58.2 — PAM leads.
Compare another set
GHC
Graham Holdings Company
Conglomerates · Quality-Growth
53.3
$1,173.16 · $5.0B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
4.9
PAM leads
PAM
Pampa Energía S.A.
Conglomerates · Quality-Growth
58.2
$80.34 · $4.3B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthPAM+6.5%
Strongest balance sheetGHC0.30
Highest qualityGHC53 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueGHC-4%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
GHC
stronger →← stronger
PAM
53
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
49
54
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
70
52
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
58
PAM is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
GHC
PAM
$275mC
FCF
-$455mF
+2.5%C
Rev
+6.5%C+
0.30A-
D/E
0.65B
9.5xA
P/E
—
4.04D
PEG
0.69A-
—
P/S
1.8xB+
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
PAM
4% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
—
~2%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
—
+6%
1-yr DCF upside
—
+4%
5-yr DCF upside
—
+2%
10-yr DCF upside
—
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
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.
PAMPampa Energía S.A.
Conglomerates · $80.34 · beta -0.24
Why now
Conglomerates · market cap $4.3b. 15% off the 52-week high of $94.50. PEG 0.69 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 11 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $121.09 (implying +51% 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 15% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately.
Risk
Free cash flow is negative (-$455m) — capital raises or debt issuance likely required; dilution / leverage risk.
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 PAM diverge
On the headline score the gap is 4.9 points in favor of PAM. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
GrowthGHC 54.3 · PAM 69.8PAM +15.5
ValueGHC 52.2 · PAM 57.8PAM +5.6
QualityGHC 53.4 · PAM 48.9GHC +4.5
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 PAM or GHC the better stock?
PAM scores higher: PAM 58.2, GHC 53.3 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 PAM and GHC differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where PAM leads by 16 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 PAM and GHC 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.