COMPARE · Data as of August 27, 2026
LEVI vs MBC
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. LEVI scored 66.5, MBC scored 24.9 — LEVI leads.
Compare another set
LEVI
Levi Strauss & Co.
66.5
$21.43 · $8.2B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
41.6
LEVI leads
MBC
MasterBrand, Inc.
24.9
$8.66 · $1.8B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- Fastest growthLEVI+7.3%
- Strongest balance sheetMBC0.86
- Highest qualityLEVI74 / 100
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
LEVI
stronger →← stronger
MBC
74
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
26
72
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
14
55
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
41
LEVI is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
LEVI
MBC
$559mC+
FCF
$74mC-
+7.3%B
Rev
-0.0%D+
1.01B
D/E
0.86B
15.1xB+
P/E
—
1.40B
PEG
—
—
P/S
0.6xA-
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
LEVI
MBC
6% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
37% above
~9%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~23%/yr
-15%
1-yr DCF upside
-44%
-6%
5-yr DCF upside
-27%
+8%
10-yr DCF upside
+6%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
LEVI
Why this score
- Raising its dividend
MBC
Why this score
- Diluting shareholders
The companies
LEVILevi Strauss & Co.
Why now
Apparel Manufacturing · market cap $8.2b. 17% off the 52-week high of $25.70. 15 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $28.27 (implying +32% upside).
Moat
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.
MBCMasterBrand, Inc.
Why now
Furnishings, Fixtures & Appliances · market cap $1.8b. Down 39% from 52-week high of $14.22 — deep drawdown territory. 3 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $10.36 (implying +20% upside).
Moat
Turnaround / out-of-favor name — GAAP-unprofitable for now, so the durability case is forward-looking: it rests on a recovery (margin normalization, a cyclical upturn or restructuring) or an un-monetized asset (IP / network effects / first-mover position) rather than on current reported results.
Risk
Currently unprofitable (margin -3.5%) — path to GAAP profitability is the core thesis risk. Down 39% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 1.44 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 LEVI and MBC diverge
On the headline score the gap is 41.6 points in favor of LEVI. The widest single difference is Growth, where LEVI leads by 58.0 points.
- GrowthLEVI 72.3 · MBC 14.3LEVI +58.0
- QualityLEVI 73.9 · MBC 26.4LEVI +47.5
- ValueLEVI 55.1 · MBC 40.8LEVI +14.3
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.