Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. KNF scored 49.2, USLM scored 49.6 — USLM leads.
Compare another set
KNF
Knife River Corporation
Building Materials · Quality-Growth
49.2
$49.84 · $2.8B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
0.4
USLM leads
USLM
United States Lime & Minerals, Inc.
Building Materials · Quality-Growth
49.6
$108.58 · $3.1B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestKNF20.3x
Fastest growthKNF+12.1%
Strongest balance sheetUSLM0.00
Highest qualityUSLM88 / 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)
KNF
stronger →← stronger
USLM
45
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
88
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
53
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
28
KNF and USLM split the three pillars evenly.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
KNF
USLM
$43mC-
FCF
$92mC-
+12.1%B+
Rev
+7.0%C+
1.04C
D/E
0.00A
20.3xB
P/E
23.3xC+
1.62C+
PEG
1.77C+
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
KNF
USLM
170% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
35% above
~31%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~16%/yr
-65%
1-yr DCF upside
-35%
-63%
5-yr DCF upside
-26%
-59%
10-yr DCF upside
-11%
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
KNF
Why this score
Cyclical growth
USLM
Why this score
Durable high returns
Cyclical growth
The companies
KNFKnife River Corporation
Building Materials · $49.84 · beta 0.60
Why now
Building Materials · market cap $2.8b. Down 48% from 52-week high of $96.28 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +12%, comfortably above the S&P median. 8 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $78.75 (implying +58% upside).
Moat
Mining moat is reserve quality + extraction cost per unit — top-quartile cost producers generate cash through the commodity cycle while marginal producers burn it.
Risk
Down 48% 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 4.2% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first. Hedge-book exposure — many commodity producers hedge forward production; if the hedge book is concentrated at prices well below spot, the upside the market expects is already locked away.
USLMUnited States Lime & Minerals, Inc.
Building Materials · $108.58 · beta 0.65
Why now
Building Materials · market cap $3.1b. Down 23% from 52-week high of $141.44 — deep drawdown territory.
Moat
Net margin 36% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 19% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. Mining moat is reserve quality + extraction cost per unit — top-quartile cost producers generate cash through the commodity cycle while marginal producers burn it.
Risk
Jurisdictional + permitting risk — mining and extraction operations concentrate exposure to political stability, royalty regimes, and environmental review timelines that can stall production 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 KNF and USLM diverge
The two are effectively level on the headline score. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
QualityKNF 44.9 · USLM 87.6USLM +42.7
ValueKNF 52.9 · USLM 27.9KNF +25.0
GrowthKNF 50.0 · USLM 50.0level
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 USLM or KNF the better stock?
USLM scores higher: USLM 49.6, KNF 49.2 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 USLM and KNF differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where USLM leads by 43 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 USLM and KNF 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.