COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
CHWY vs MELI
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CHWY scored 69.2, MELI scored 72.7 — MELI leads.
Compare another set
CHWY
Chewy, Inc.
69.2
$24.02 · $9.8B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
3.5
MELI leads
MELI
MercadoLibre, Inc.
72.7
$1,922.73 · $97.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestCHWY40.0x
- Fastest growthMELI+41.2%
- Strongest balance sheetCHWY1.23
- Highest qualityCHWY76 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueMELI-58%
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)
CHWY
stronger →← stronger
MELI
76
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
75
56
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
98
78
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
52
CHWY is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CHWY
MELI
$585mC+
FCF
$12.4bA-
+6.1%C+
Rev
+41.2%A
1.23B
D/E
1.69C+
40.0xC
P/E
52.4xD
0.48A
PEG
1.36B
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
CHWY
MELI
6% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
58% below
~14%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~-7%/yr
-23%
1-yr DCF upside
+83%
-6%
5-yr DCF upside
+139%
+26%
10-yr DCF upside
+249%
These two disagree on this pair: the Value pillar ranks cheapness against sector peers, while price-vs-fair-value is an absolute read. A name can be the better value in its sector and still the dearer one on cash flows.
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
CHWY
Why this score
- Durable high returns
MELI
Why this score
- Durable high returns
The companies
CHWYChewy, Inc.
Why now
Internet Retail · market cap $9.8b. Down 45% from 52-week high of $43.50 — deep drawdown territory. PEG 0.48 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 22 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $30.77 (implying +28% upside).
Moat
ROE 60% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income — non-cash charges (depreciation, intangible amortization) are holding down GAAP earnings while cash generation stays strong.
Risk
Down 45% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 1.42 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. Trailing P/E 40x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
MELIMercadoLibre, Inc.
Why now
Internet Retail · market cap $97.5b. Down 25% from 52-week high of $2548.50 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +41% — in hypergrowth territory. 24 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $2,257 (implying +17% upside).
Moat
ROE 24% sits above Buffett's preferred 15% threshold — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income — non-cash charges (depreciation, intangible amortization) are holding down GAAP earnings while cash generation stays strong. $97.5b 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
Trailing P/E 52.4x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. E-commerce competition — Amazon, Walmart, Shein, and Temu have each forced the rest of the category to compete on price, fulfillment speed, or assortment; sustaining margins requires one of those being structurally defended.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
MELI leads CHWY by 3.5 points (72.7 to 69.2), its sharpest advantage coming in Rev (grade A). A contrarian could still prefer CHWY for its stronger P/E (grade C).
Our AI analyst is busy right now, so this verdict is drawn directly from the pillars, grades and DCF above.
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 CHWY and MELI diverge
On the headline score the gap is 3.5 points in favor of MELI. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- GrowthCHWY 55.7 · MELI 98.1MELI +42.4
- ValueCHWY 78.3 · MELI 52.4CHWY +25.9
- QualityCHWY 76.0 · MELI 74.8level
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.