Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. MWH scored 72.0, VST scored 49.2 — MWH leads.
Compare another set
MWH
SOLV Energy, Inc.
Utilities - Renewable · Quality-Growth
72
$26.21 · $5.3B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
22.8
MWH leads
VST
Vistra Corp.
Utilities - Independent Power Producers · Quality-Growth
49.2
$161.48 · $54.2B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestVST27.2x
Fastest growthMWH+34.8%
Strongest balance sheetMWH0.10
Highest qualityMWH74 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueMWH-23%
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)
MWH
stronger →← stronger
VST
74
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
64
95
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
64
75
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
29
MWH is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
MWH
VST
$295mC
FCF
$2.3bB
+34.8%A
Rev
+3.8%C+
0.10A
D/E
3.73D
55.8xD
P/E
27.2xC
1.65C+
PEG
0.43A
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
MWH
VST
23% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
88% above
~9%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~23%/yr
-1%
1-yr DCF upside
-50%
+29%
5-yr DCF upside
-47%
+90%
10-yr DCF upside
-42%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
MWH
Why this score
Short track record
VST
No notable signals flagged.
The companies
MWHSOLV Energy, Inc.
Utilities - Renewable · $26.21
Why now
Utilities - Renewable · market cap $5.3b. Down 46% from 52-week high of $48.40 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +35% — in hypergrowth territory. 11 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $43.73 (implying +67% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of depreciation and amortization ($96m) — non-cash charges that hold down reported earnings while cash generation stays strong.
Risk
Trailing P/E 55.8x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Down 46% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Net margin 3.8% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
VSTVistra Corp.
Utilities - Independent Power Producers · $161.48 · beta 1.38
Why now
Utilities - Independent Power Producers · market cap $54.2b. Down 26% from 52-week high of $217.10 — deep drawdown territory. PEG 0.43 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 20 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $210.25 (implying +30% upside).
Moat
ROE 40% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 102% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash. $54.2b 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
D/E 3.73 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
MWH leads VST by 7.1 points (72.0 to 64.9), its sharpest advantage coming in D/E (grade A). A contrarian could still prefer VST for its stronger FCF (grade B). Note they play different roles — MWH screens as growth, VST screens as value — so the model rewards different traits for each.
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 MWH and VST diverge
On the headline score the gap is 22.8 points in favor of MWH. The widest single difference is Value, where MWH leads by 45.9 points.
ValueMWH 74.9 · VST 29.0MWH +45.9
GrowthMWH 95.4 · VST 64.0MWH +31.4
QualityMWH 74.2 · VST 64.2MWH +10.0
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 MWH or VST the better stock?
MWH scores higher: MWH 72.0, VST 49.2 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 MWH and VST differ most?
The widest gap is value, where MWH leads by 46 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. MWH leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are MWH and VST 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.