Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. JBTM scored 68.3, VRT scored 74.1 — VRT leads.
Compare another set
JBTM
JBT Marel Corporation
Specialty Industrial Machinery · Quality-Growth
68.3
$107.08 · $5.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
5.8
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
CheapestJBTM29.0x
Fastest growthJBTM+121.3%
Strongest balance sheetJBTM0.38
Highest qualityVRT86 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueJBTM-14%
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)
JBTM
stronger →← stronger
VRT
48
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
86
93
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
94
71
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
50
VRT is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
JBTM
VRT
$310mC
FCF
$2.9bB
+121.3%A
Rev
+26.2%A-
0.38B+
D/E
0.70B
29.0xB
P/E
54.9xD
1.22B
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
JBTM
VRT
14% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
124% above
~7%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~38%/yr
-2%
1-yr DCF upside
-65%
+16%
5-yr DCF upside
-55%
+48%
10-yr DCF upside
-37%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Specialty Industrial Machinery · market cap $5.6b. Down 37% from 52-week high of $170.19 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +121% — in hypergrowth territory. 8 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $167.06 (implying +56% upside).
Moat
FCF converts 160% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Down 37% 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 4.9% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first. ROE 4% 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.
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 JBTM and VRT diverge
On the headline score the gap is 5.8 points in favor of VRT. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
QualityJBTM 48.0 · VRT 86.2VRT +38.2
ValueJBTM 71.1 · VRT 50.2JBTM +20.9
GrowthJBTM 93.4 · VRT 94.1level
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 JBTM the better stock?
VRT scores higher: VRT 74.1, JBTM 68.3 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 JBTM differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where VRT leads by 38 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 VRT and JBTM 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.