COMPARE · Data as of August 27, 2026

KT vs TMUS

Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. KT scored 33.8, TMUS scored 71.5 — TMUS leads.
Compare another set
KT
KT Corporation
Telecom Services · Quality-Growth
33.8
$19.60 · $9.3B
Score gap
37.7
TMUS leads
TMUS
T-Mobile US, Inc.
Telecom Services · Quality-Growth
71.5
$177.75 · $190.7B
fundamentals as of
  • CheapestKT10.2x
  • Fastest growthTMUS+9.7%
  • Strongest balance sheetKT0.62
  • Highest qualityTMUS74 / 100
  • Largest discount to fair valueTMUS-50%
THE BULL RANKINGS SCORECARD33.8/ 100 · BULL SCOREPEER MEDIANQUALITY45.9GROWTH42.9VALUE27.0
THE BULL RANKINGS SCORECARD71.5/ 100 · BULL SCOREPEER MEDIANQUALITY73.6GROWTH73.9VALUE67.3
KTTMUSQuality45.973.6Growth42.973.9Value27.067.3
cheap & fastrevenue growth →← cheaper (lower multiple)-10%20%5.2x24xKTTMUS

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.

FCFKT$1.3bTMUS$18.4b
RevKT+0.4%TMUS+9.7%
D/EKT0.62TMUS2.14
P/EKT10.2xTMUS18.6x
PEGKT4.41TMUS0.84
KT
stronger →← stronger
TMUS
46
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
74
43
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
74
27
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
67
TMUS is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
KT
TMUS
$1.3bC+
FCF
$18.4bA-
+0.4%C
Rev
+9.7%B
0.62B
D/E
2.14C
10.2xA-
P/E
18.6xB
4.41D
PEG
0.84B+
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.
KT
TMUS
46% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
50% below
~-13%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~-5%/yr
+93%
1-yr DCF upside
+63%
+87%
5-yr DCF upside
+99%
+79%
10-yr DCF upside
+165%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
KT
Why this score
  • Cut its dividend
  • Foreign reporter (KRW)
TMUS
Why this score
  • Buying back stock
  • Raising its dividend
KTKT Corporation
Telecom Services · $19.60 · beta 0.09
Why now
Telecom Services · market cap $9.3b. Down 20% from 52-week high of $24.58 — deep drawdown territory. 4 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $21.94 (implying +12% upside).
Moat
FCF converts 133% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Net margin 1.5% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first. ROE 2% 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.
TMUST-Mobile US, Inc.
Telecom Services · $177.75 · beta 0.33
Why now
Telecom Services · market cap $190.7b. Down 31% from 52-week high of $258.66 — deep drawdown territory. PEG 0.84 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 24 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $243.38 (implying +37% upside).
Moat
ROE 19% sits above Buffett's preferred 15% threshold — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 174% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined. $190.7b market cap gives the company enough scale to absorb fixed costs that subscale competitors can't, without yet being so large that growth has to come from acquisition.
Risk
D/E 2.14 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.
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 KT and TMUS diverge

On the headline score the gap is 37.7 points in favor of TMUS. The widest single difference is Value, where TMUS leads by 40.3 points.

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.