COMPARE · Data as of August 27, 2026
HUBB vs VRT
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. HUBB scored 55.1, VRT scored 74.4 — VRT leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. VRT's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but HUBB's are as of March 2026 — a 3-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
HUBB
Hubbell Incorporated
55.1
$470.28 · $24.8B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
19.3
VRT leads
VRT
Vertiv Holdings Co
74.4
$255.75 · $98.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestHUBB27.9x
- Fastest growthVRT+26.2%
- Strongest balance sheetVRT0.70
- Highest qualityVRT86 / 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)
HUBB
stronger →← stronger
VRT
76
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
86
75
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
91
30
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
53
VRT is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
HUBB
VRT
$909mC+
FCF
$2.9bB
+7.2%B
Rev
+26.2%A-
1.42C
D/E
0.70B
27.9xB
P/E
57.9xD
2.15C
PEG
1.23B
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
HUBB
VRT
40% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
150% above
~16%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~42%/yr
-36%
1-yr DCF upside
-69%
-29%
5-yr DCF upside
-60%
-16%
10-yr DCF upside
-43%
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
HUBB
Why this score
- Raising its dividend
- Durable high returns
VRT
Why this score
- Durable high returns
The companies
HUBBHubbell Incorporated
Why now
Electrical Equipment & Parts · market cap $24.8b. 17% off the 52-week high of $565.50. 11 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $564.82 (implying +20% upside).
Moat
Net margin 15% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 24% sits above Buffett's preferred 15% threshold — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 100% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
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.
VRTVertiv Holdings Co
Why now
Electrical Equipment & Parts · market cap $98.5b. Down 33% from 52-week high of $379.94 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +26% — in hypergrowth territory. 26 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $338.15 (implying +32% upside).
Moat
Net margin 15% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 36% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 169% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Trailing P/E 57.9x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. 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. Beta 2.08 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return.
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 HUBB and VRT diverge
On the headline score the gap is 19.3 points in favor of VRT. The widest single difference is Value, where VRT leads by 23.0 points.
- ValueHUBB 29.6 · VRT 52.6VRT +23.0
- GrowthHUBB 74.7 · VRT 90.8VRT +16.1
- QualityHUBB 75.6 · VRT 86.2VRT +10.6
Pillars run 0–100 against sector peers, so a 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.