Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. NTR scored 49.3, WDFC scored 57.0 — WDFC leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. WDFC's fundamentals are as of May 2026, but NTR's are as of December 2025 — a 5-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
NTR
Nutrien Ltd.
Agricultural Inputs · Quality-Growth
49.3
$67.48 · $32.2B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
7.7
WDFC leads
WDFC
WD-40 Company
Specialty Chemicals · Quality-Growth
57
$202.29 · $2.7B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestNTR13.7x
Fastest growthWDFC+10.2%
Strongest balance sheetWDFC0.41
Highest qualityWDFC84 / 100
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)
NTR
stronger →← stronger
WDFC
60
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
84
47
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
43
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
44
WDFC is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
NTR
WDFC
$2.1bB
FCF
$79mC-
+3.5%C+
Rev
+10.2%B
0.49B
D/E
0.41B
13.7xB+
P/E
30.7xC
1.98C+
PEG
3.76D
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
NTR
WDFC
13% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
106% above
~7%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~25%/yr
-11%
1-yr DCF upside
-55%
-11%
5-yr DCF upside
-52%
-12%
10-yr DCF upside
-47%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
NTR
No notable signals flagged.
WDFC
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
Cyclical growth
The companies
NTRNutrien Ltd.
Agricultural Inputs · $67.48 · beta 1.13
Why now
Agricultural Inputs · market cap $32.2b. Down 21% from 52-week high of $85.36 — deep drawdown territory. 21 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $76.81 (implying +14% 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
Value re-rating depends on a catalyst. Without one — analyst day, divestiture, margin recovery, capital return — the stock can stay cheap on these multiples for years.
WDFCWD-40 Company
Specialty Chemicals · $202.29 · beta 0.26
Why now
Specialty Chemicals · market cap $2.7b. Down 32% from 52-week high of $298.90 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +10%, comfortably above the S&P median. 3 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $271.67 (implying +34% 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. ROE 32% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which.
Risk
Down 32% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Trailing P/E 31x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
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 NTR and WDFC diverge
On the headline score the gap is 7.7 points in favor of WDFC. The widest single difference is Quality, where WDFC leads by 24.3 points.
QualityNTR 59.9 · WDFC 84.2WDFC +24.3
GrowthNTR 47.0 · WDFC 50.0WDFC +3.0
ValueNTR 42.6 · WDFC 44.1level
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 WDFC or NTR the better stock?
WDFC scores higher: WDFC 57.0, NTR 49.3 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 WDFC and NTR differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where WDFC leads by 24 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. WDFC also leads growth, while value is effectively level between them.
How are WDFC and NTR 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.