Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. J scored 38.5, EME scored 72.5 — EME leads.
Compare another set
J
Jacobs Solutions Inc.
Engineering & Construction · Quality-Growth
38.5
$139.15 · $16.3B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
34.0
EME leads
EME
EMCOR Group, Inc.
Engineering & Construction · Quality-Growth
72.5
$789.45 · $34.8B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestEME24.6x
Fastest growthEME+16.6%
Strongest balance sheetEME0.13
Highest qualityEME84 / 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)
J
stronger →← stronger
EME
54
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
84
55
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
88
19
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
52
EME is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
J
EME
$645mC+
FCF
$1.2bC+
+4.6%C+
Rev
+16.6%B+
1.25C
D/E
0.13A-
46.2xC
P/E
24.6xB
0.42A
PEG
0.32A
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
J
EME
28% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
75% above
~10%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~24%/yr
-22%
1-yr DCF upside
-50%
-22%
5-yr DCF upside
-43%
-20%
10-yr DCF upside
-31%
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
J
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
EME
Why this score
Durable high returns
The companies
JJacobs Solutions Inc.
Engineering & Construction · $139.15 · beta 0.70
Why now
Engineering & Construction · market cap $16.3b. 17% off the 52-week high of $168.44. PEG 0.42 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 15 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $162.47 (implying +17% upside).
Moat
FCF converts 179% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Trailing P/E 46x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. Net margin 2.4% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first. ROE 8% is below the long-run sustainable threshold of ~10% — capital efficiency would need to improve for the equity base to compound at the market rate.
EMEEMCOR Group, Inc.
Engineering & Construction · $789.45 · beta 1.12
Why now
Engineering & Construction · market cap $34.8b. 17% off the 52-week high of $951.96. Revenue growing +17%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.32 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 7 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $1,033 (implying +31% upside).
Moat
ROE 40% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which.
Risk
Value re-rating depends on a catalyst. Without one — analyst day, divestiture, margin recovery, capital return — the stock can stay cheap on these multiples for years.
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 J and EME diverge
On the headline score the gap is 34.0 points in favor of EME. The widest single difference is Growth, where EME leads by 32.9 points.
GrowthJ 55.2 · EME 88.1EME +32.9
ValueJ 19.2 · EME 51.5EME +32.3
QualityJ 53.9 · EME 83.8EME +29.9
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 EME or J the better stock?
EME scores higher: EME 72.5, J 38.5 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 EME and J differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where EME leads by 33 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. EME leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are EME and J 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.