COMPARE · Data as of August 12, 2026
JBS vs POST
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. JBS scored 66.6, POST scored 67.1 — POST leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. POST's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but JBS's are as of December 2025 — a 6-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
JBS
JBS N.V.
66.6
$13.12 · $14.1B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
0.5
POST leads
POST
Post Holdings, Inc.
67.1
$80.58 · $3.7B
fundamentals as of
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
JBS
stronger →← stronger
POST
69
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
52
69
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
77
62
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
75
POST is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
JBS
POST
$833mC+
FCF
$553mC+
+11.7%B
Rev
+6.2%C+
2.83D
D/E
2.47D
12.1xA-
P/E
14.3xA-
1.04B+
PEG
1.17B+
Winner per row is the stronger grade in our model; a tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
JBS
POST
11% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
46% below
~6%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~-16%/yr
-3%
1-yr DCF upside
+106%
+13%
5-yr DCF upside
+85%
+40%
10-yr DCF upside
+60%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
JBS
Why this score
- Short track record
POST
Why this score
- Buying back stock
The companies
JBSJBS N.V.
Why now
Packaged Foods · market cap $14.1b. Down 30% from 52-week high of $18.65 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +12%, comfortably above the S&P median. 14 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $17.98 (implying +37% upside).
Moat
ROE 23% sits above Buffett's preferred 15% threshold — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately.
Risk
D/E 2.83 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Dividend payout 93% of earnings on a 10.0% yield — distribution coverage is thin; one earnings stumble could force a dividend cut. Net margin 2.6% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
POSTPost Holdings, Inc.
Why now
Packaged Foods · market cap $3.7b. Down 31% from 52-week high of $117.28 — deep drawdown territory. 6 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $105.17 (implying +31% upside).
Moat
FCF converts 189% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
D/E 2.47 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. 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. Net margin 3.5% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
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 JBS and POST diverge
On the headline score the gap is 0.5 points in favour of POST. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- QualityJBS 69.3 · POST 52.5JBS +16.8
- ValueJBS 61.9 · POST 75.2POST +13.3
- GrowthJBS 69.0 · POST 76.5POST +7.5
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.