Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. LVS scored 73.5, VIK scored 56.1 — LVS leads.
Compare another set
LVS
Las Vegas Sands Corp.
Resorts & Casinos · Quality-Growth
73.5
$36.17 · $23.4B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
17.4
LVS leads
VIK
Viking Holdings Ltd
Travel Services · Quality-Growth
56.1
$81.62 · $36.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestLVS14.1x
Fastest growthVIK+21.9%
Highest qualityLVS90 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueLVS-65%
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)
LVS
stronger →← stronger
VIK
90
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
68
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
88
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
52
LVS is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
LVS
VIK
$2.7bB
FCF
$1.2bC+
+18.1%B+
Rev
+21.9%A-
—
D/E
3.75C
14.1xB+
P/E
27.1xC
0.77A-
PEG
0.78A-
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
LVS
VIK
65% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
88% above
~-13%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~33%/yr
+138%
1-yr DCF upside
-59%
+186%
5-yr DCF upside
-47%
+276%
10-yr DCF upside
-24%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
LVS
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
Cyclical growth
VIK
Why this score
Durable high returns
Diluting shareholders
Cyclical growth
Short track record
The companies
LVSLas Vegas Sands Corp.
Resorts & Casinos · $36.17 · beta 0.77
Why now
Resorts & Casinos · market cap $23.4b. Down 49% from 52-week high of $70.45 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +18%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.77 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 19 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $58.65 (implying +62% 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. FCF converts 157% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Down 49% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up.
VIKViking Holdings Ltd
Travel Services · $81.62 · beta 1.47
Why now
Travel Services · market cap $36.5b. Down 26% from 52-week high of $110.09 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +22%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.78 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 22 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $109.55 (implying +34% upside).
Moat
Net margin 19% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent.
Risk
D/E 3.75 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Beta 1.47 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 LVS and VIK diverge
On the headline score the gap is 17.4 points in favor of LVS. The widest single difference is Value, where LVS leads by 36.1 points.
ValueLVS 88.2 · VIK 52.1LVS +36.1
QualityLVS 90.1 · VIK 67.9LVS +22.2
GrowthLVS 50.0 · VIK 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 LVS or VIK the better stock?
LVS scores higher: LVS 73.5, VIK 56.1 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 LVS and VIK differ most?
The widest gap is value, where LVS leads by 36 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. LVS also leads quality, while growth is effectively level between them.
How are LVS and VIK 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.