Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. KTB scored 80.0, VFC scored 45.1 — KTB leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. KTB's fundamentals are as of July 2026, but VFC's are as of March 2026 — a 3-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
KTB
Kontoor Brands, Inc.
Apparel Manufacturing · Quality-Growth
80
$65.62 · $3.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
34.9
KTB leads
VFC
V.F. Corporation
Apparel Manufacturing · Quality-Growth
45.1
$15.00 · $5.9B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestKTB16.0x
Fastest growthKTB+34.3%
Strongest balance sheetKTB2.06
Highest qualityKTB81 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueKTB-53%
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)
KTB
stronger →← stronger
VFC
81
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
54
79
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
47
80
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
36
KTB is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
KTB
VFC
$422mC
FCF
$581mC+
+34.3%A
Rev
+1.1%C
2.06C
D/E
2.81C
16.0xB+
P/E
22.1xC+
1.89C+
PEG
0.37A
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
KTB
VFC
53% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
6% above
~-11%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~4%/yr
+99%
1-yr DCF upside
-2%
+112%
5-yr DCF upside
-6%
+131%
10-yr DCF upside
-10%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
KTB
Why this score
Durable high returns
VFC
No notable signals flagged.
The companies
KTBKontoor Brands, Inc.
Apparel Manufacturing · $65.62 · beta 0.90
Why now
Apparel Manufacturing · market cap $3.6b. Down 26% from 52-week high of $88.96 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +34% — in hypergrowth territory. 10 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $97.50 (implying +49% upside).
Moat
ROE 43% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 158% of net income, helped by cash released from working capital ($123m) that doesn't repeat every year.
Risk
D/E 2.06 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer.
VFCV.F. Corporation
Apparel Manufacturing · $15.00 · beta 1.58
Why now
Apparel Manufacturing · market cap $5.9b. Down 33% from 52-week high of $22.27 — deep drawdown territory. PEG 0.37 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 22 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $18.33 (implying +22% upside).
Moat
ROE 14% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of depreciation and amortization ($274m) — non-cash charges that hold down reported earnings while cash generation stays strong.
Risk
D/E 2.81 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Down 33% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 1.58 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 KTB and VFC diverge
On the headline score the gap is 34.9 points in favor of KTB. The widest single difference is Value, where KTB leads by 44.6 points.
ValueKTB 80.4 · VFC 35.8KTB +44.6
GrowthKTB 78.7 · VFC 47.5KTB +31.2
QualityKTB 80.8 · VFC 53.9KTB +26.9
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 KTB or VFC the better stock?
KTB scores higher: KTB 80.0, VFC 45.1 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 KTB and VFC differ most?
The widest gap is value, where KTB leads by 45 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. KTB leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are KTB and VFC 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.