Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. GVA scored 48.9, WMS scored 70.6 — WMS leads.
Compare another set
GVA
Granite Construction Incorporated
Engineering & Construction · Quality-Growth
48.9
$112.50 · $5.0B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
21.7
WMS leads
WMS
Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc.
Building Products & Equipment · Quality-Growth
70.6
$125.79 · $9.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthGVA+21.8%
Strongest balance sheetWMS0.97
Highest qualityWMS81 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueGVA-26%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
GVA
stronger →← stronger
WMS
49
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
81
73
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
70
33
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
62
WMS is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
GVA
WMS
$472mC
FCF
$550mC+
+21.8%A-
Rev
+10.4%B
2.15D
D/E
0.97C+
1.0xA-
P/S
—
0.11A
PEG
1.19B+
—
P/E
21.4xB+
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
GVA
WMS
26% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
24% above
~1%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~13%/yr
+20%
1-yr DCF upside
-26%
+35%
5-yr DCF upside
-19%
+59%
10-yr DCF upside
-9%
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
GVA
No notable signals flagged.
WMS
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
The companies
GVAGranite Construction Incorporated
Engineering & Construction · $112.50 · beta 1.35
Why now
Engineering & Construction · market cap $5.0b. Down 31% from 52-week high of $162.08 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +22%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.11 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 6 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $171.67 (implying +53% upside).
Moat
Turnaround / out-of-favor name — GAAP-unprofitable for now, so the durability case is forward-looking: it rests on a recovery (margin normalization, a cyclical upturn or restructuring) or an un-monetized asset (IP / network effects / first-mover position) rather than on current reported results.
Risk
D/E 2.15 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Currently unprofitable (margin -3.3%) — path to GAAP profitability is the core thesis risk. Down 31% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up.
WMSAdvanced Drainage Systems, Inc.
Building Products & Equipment · $125.79 · beta 1.29
Why now
Building Products & Equipment · market cap $9.5b. Down 30% from 52-week high of $179.31 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +10%, comfortably above the S&P median. 11 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $182.45 (implying +45% upside).
Moat
Net margin 14% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 25% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 122% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
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 GVA and WMS diverge
On the headline score the gap is 21.7 points in favor of WMS. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
QualityGVA 48.8 · WMS 80.9WMS +32.1
ValueGVA 32.8 · WMS 62.2WMS +29.4
GrowthGVA 73.1 · WMS 69.9GVA +3.2
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 WMS or GVA the better stock?
WMS scores higher: WMS 70.6, GVA 48.9 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 WMS and GVA differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where WMS leads by 32 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 WMS and GVA 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.