Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. LAUR scored 78.5, CVSA scored 75.8 — LAUR leads.
Compare another set
LAUR
Laureate Education, Inc.
Education & Training Services · Quality-Growth
78.5
$39.47 · $5.4B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
2.7
LAUR leads
CVSA
Covista Inc.
Education & Training Services · Quality-Growth
75.8
$129.38 · $4.4B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestCVSA17.3x
Fastest growthLAUR+17.9%
Strongest balance sheetCVSA0.63
Highest qualityLAUR91 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueCVSA-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)
LAUR
stronger →← stronger
CVSA
91
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
82
84
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
72
63
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
75
LAUR is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
LAUR
CVSA
$287mC
FCF
$393mC
+17.9%B+
Rev
+9.3%B
0.64B+
D/E
0.63B+
17.9xB
P/E
17.3xB+
1.09B+
PEG
0.96B+
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
LAUR
CVSA
1% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
53% below
~10%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-10%/yr
-14%
1-yr DCF upside
+95%
-1%
5-yr DCF upside
+113%
+20%
10-yr DCF upside
+144%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
LAUR
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
CVSA
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
The companies
LAURLaureate Education, Inc.
Education & Training Services · $39.47 · beta 0.47
Why now
Education & Training Services · market cap $5.4b. 4% off the 52-week high of $40.92. Revenue growing +18%, comfortably above the S&P median. 7 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $41.21 (implying +4% upside).
Moat
Net margin 18% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 28% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which.
Risk
Mature compounder — the risk is paying up for quality at a moment when growth is decelerating. Watch for sequential revenue + margin trends; the inflection from "compounder" to "ex-compounder" is hard to spot until the multiple already started compressing.
CVSACovista Inc.
Education & Training Services · $129.38 · beta 0.65
Why now
Education & Training Services · market cap $4.4b. 17% off the 52-week high of $156.26. PEG 0.96 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 4 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $158.75 (implying +23% upside).
Moat
Net margin 13% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 19% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 147% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Value re-rating depends on a catalyst. Without one — analyst day, divestiture, margin recovery, capital return — the stock can stay cheap on these multiples for years.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
The model favors CVSA (81.4) over LAUR (75) primarily due to CVSA's significantly higher Value pillar of 79 versus LAUR's 55. However, a contrarian might prefer LAUR for its superior Quality pillar of 91 and stronger revenue growth of +17.9%, suggesting a more robust underlying business. No structural caveats apply here.
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 LAUR and CVSA diverge
On the headline score the gap is 2.7 points in favor of LAUR. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
GrowthLAUR 84.0 · CVSA 71.6LAUR +12.4
ValueLAUR 63.4 · CVSA 74.5CVSA +11.1
QualityLAUR 90.7 · CVSA 81.7LAUR +9.0
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 LAUR or CVSA the better stock?
LAUR scores higher: LAUR 78.5, CVSA 75.8 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 LAUR and CVSA differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where LAUR leads by 12 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 LAUR and CVSA 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.