Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. HONA scored 72.0, PAC scored 58.0 — HONA leads.
Compare another set
HONA
Honeywell Aerospace Inc.
Aerospace & Defense · Quality-Growth
72
$157.94 · $50.1B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
14.0
HONA leads
PAC
Grupo Aeroportuario del Pacífico, S.A.B. de C.V.
Airports & Air Services · Quality-Growth
58
$201.50 · $12.0B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestPAC17.9x
Fastest growthPAC+23.2%
Highest qualityPAC77 / 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)
HONA
stronger →← stronger
PAC
76
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
77
84
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
62
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
69
PAC is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
HONA
PAC
$2.5bB
FCF
$252mC
+12.7%B+
Rev
+23.2%A-
Negative equity
D/E
1.18C
48.2xC
P/E
17.9xA-
0.98B+
PEG
1.07B+
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
HONA
PAC
8% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
147% above
~11%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~34%/yr
-19%
1-yr DCF upside
-65%
-7%
5-yr DCF upside
-60%
+13%
10-yr DCF upside
-50%
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
HONA
Why this score
Short track record
PAC
Why this score
Durable high returns
Cyclical growth
Foreign reporter (MXN)
The companies
HONAHoneywell Aerospace Inc.
Aerospace & Defense · $157.94
Why now
Aerospace & Defense · market cap $50.1b. Down 47% from 52-week high of $297.50 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +13%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.98 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 15 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $201.87 (implying +28% upside).
Moat
FCF converts 128% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash. $50.1b 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
Down 47% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Trailing P/E 48x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
PACGrupo Aeroportuario del Pacífico, S.A.B. de C.V.
Airports & Air Services · $201.50 · beta 0.30
Why now
Airports & Air Services · market cap $12.0b. Down 33% from 52-week high of $300.41 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +23%, comfortably above the S&P median. 7 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $254.49 (implying +26% upside).
Moat
Net margin 31% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 28% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which.
Risk
Down 33% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up.
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 HONA and PAC diverge
On the headline score the gap is 14.0 points in favor of HONA. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
GrowthHONA 83.7 · PAC 50.0HONA +33.7
ValueHONA 61.5 · PAC 69.1PAC +7.6
QualityHONA 76.0 · PAC 77.3level
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 HONA or PAC the better stock?
HONA scores higher: HONA 72.0, PAC 58.0 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 HONA and PAC differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where HONA 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 HONA and PAC 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.