Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. HUBB scored 54.3, VRT scored 74.1 — 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
Electrical Equipment & Parts · Quality-Growth
54.3
$474.11 · $25.0B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
19.8
VRT leads
VRT
Vertiv Holdings Co
Electrical Equipment & Parts · Quality-Growth
74.1
$242.78 · $93.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestHUBB28.1x
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
75
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
86
68
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
94
31
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
50
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
28.1xB
P/E
54.9xD
1.98C+
PEG
0.82B+
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
43% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
124% above
~16%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~38%/yr
-35%
1-yr DCF upside
-65%
-30%
5-yr DCF upside
-55%
-22%
10-yr DCF upside
-37%
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
Electrical Equipment & Parts · $474.11 · beta 0.85
Why now
Electrical Equipment & Parts · market cap $25.0b. 16% off the 52-week high of $565.50. 12 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $560.58 (implying +18% 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% is above 15% — 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.
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
Electrical Equipment & Parts · $242.78 · beta 2.05
Why now
Electrical Equipment & Parts · market cap $93.5b. Down 36% from 52-week high of $379.94 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +26% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.82 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 28 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $337.43 (implying +39% 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, helped by cash released from working capital ($1.1b) that doesn't repeat every year.
Risk
Trailing P/E 54.9x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Down 36% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 2.05 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 19.8 points in favor of VRT. The widest single difference is Growth, where VRT leads by 25.7 points.
GrowthHUBB 68.4 · VRT 94.1VRT +25.7
ValueHUBB 31.1 · VRT 50.2VRT +19.1
QualityHUBB 75.1 · VRT 86.2VRT +11.1
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 VRT or HUBB the better stock?
VRT scores higher: VRT 74.1, HUBB 54.3 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 VRT and HUBB differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where VRT leads by 26 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. VRT leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are VRT and HUBB 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.