Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. GRDN scored 69.8, PACS scored 70.1 — PACS leads.
Compare another set
GRDN
Guardian Pharmacy Services, Inc.
Medical Care Facilities · Quality-Growth
69.8
$41.28 · $2.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
0.3
PACS leads
PACS
PACS Group, Inc.
Medical Care Facilities · Quality-Growth
70.1
$43.30 · $6.9B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestPACS25.3x
Fastest growthGRDN+17.9%
Strongest balance sheetGRDN0.15
Highest qualityGRDN81 / 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)
GRDN
stronger →← stronger
PACS
81
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
63
87
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
89
48
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
62
PACS is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
GRDN
PACS
$80mC-
FCF
$121mC
+17.9%B+
Rev
+15.2%B+
0.15B+
D/E
3.05D
40.5xC
P/E
25.3xB
3.93D
PEG
1.10B+
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
GRDN
PACS
76% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
197% above
~24%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~39%/yr
-50%
1-yr DCF upside
-71%
-43%
5-yr DCF upside
-66%
-32%
10-yr DCF upside
-59%
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.
Model signals
GRDN
Why this score
Short track record
PACS
Why this score
Short track record
The companies
GRDNGuardian Pharmacy Services, Inc.
Medical Care Facilities · $41.28 · beta 0.02
Why now
Medical Care Facilities · market cap $2.6b. 15% off the 52-week high of $48.33. Revenue growing +18%, comfortably above the S&P median. 7 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $49.86 (implying +21% upside).
Moat
ROE 30% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 121% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Trailing P/E 40x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. Net margin 4.5% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
PACSPACS Group, Inc.
Medical Care Facilities · $43.30 · beta -0.08
Why now
Medical Care Facilities · market cap $6.9b. 13% off the 52-week high of $49.49. Revenue growing +15%, comfortably above the S&P median. 6 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $59.00 (implying +36% upside).
Moat
ROE 24% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately.
Risk
D/E 3.05 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Net margin 4.8% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
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 GRDN and PACS diverge
The two are effectively level on the headline score. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
QualityGRDN 81.0 · PACS 63.1GRDN +17.9
ValueGRDN 48.1 · PACS 61.5PACS +13.4
GrowthGRDN 87.2 · PACS 88.9level
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 PACS or GRDN the better stock?
PACS scores higher: PACS 70.1, GRDN 69.8 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 PACS and GRDN differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where GRDN leads by 18 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 PACS and GRDN 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.