Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. MO scored 51.8, CLX scored 53.9 — CLX leads.
Compare another set
MO
Altria Group, Inc.
Tobacco · Quality-Growth
51.8
$71.68 · $119.7B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
2.1
CLX leads
CLX
The Clorox Company
Household & Personal Products · Quality-Growth
53.9
$83.80 · $10.1B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestMO15.0x
Fastest growthMO-0.6%
Highest qualityMO94 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueMO-2%
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)
MO
stronger →← stronger
CLX
94
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
79
27
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
31
55
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
64
CLX is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
MO
CLX
$9.1bB+
FCF
$405mC
-0.6%D+
Rev
-5.4%D
Negative equity
D/E
—
15.0xB+
P/E
17.4xB
2.74C
PEG
1.04B+
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
MO
CLX
2% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
19% above
~1%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~6%/yr
+8%
1-yr DCF upside
-13%
+2%
5-yr DCF upside
-16%
-6%
10-yr DCF upside
-21%
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
MO
Why this score
Durable high returns
CLX
No notable signals flagged.
The companies
MOAltria Group, Inc.
Tobacco · $71.68 · beta 0.46
Why now
Tobacco · market cap $119.7b. 7% off the 52-week high of $77.06. 11 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $70.00 (implying -2% upside).
Moat
Net margin 34% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. FCF converts 114% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash. $119.7b 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
Dividend payout 89% of earnings on a 6.2% yield — distribution coverage is thin; one earnings stumble could force a dividend cut.
CLXThe Clorox Company
Household & Personal Products · $83.80 · beta 0.57
Why now
Household & Personal Products · market cap $10.1b. Down 35% from 52-week high of $128.90 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue -5% — in contraction; any catalyst that reverses this triggers re-rating. 17 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $99.59 (implying +19% upside).
Moat
Moat signals from the quantitative card are modest — profitability and capital efficiency are middle-of-pack. The thesis here depends on softer factors (switching costs, brand, distribution, regulatory protection) not captured by the quality-growth screen.
Risk
Revenue contracting -5% — the operational turn is not yet visible in the top line. Down 35% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Dividend payout 103% of earnings on a 6.0% yield — distribution coverage is thin; one earnings stumble could force a dividend cut.
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 MO and CLX diverge
On the headline score the gap is 2.1 points in favor of CLX. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
QualityMO 93.8 · CLX 79.4MO +14.4
ValueMO 54.7 · CLX 63.5CLX +8.8
GrowthMO 27.2 · CLX 31.1CLX +3.9
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 CLX or MO the better stock?
CLX scores higher: CLX 53.9, MO 51.8 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 CLX and MO differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where MO leads by 14 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 CLX and MO 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.