Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. PAC scored 58.0, TDG scored 74.9 — TDG leads.
Compare another set
PAC
Grupo Aeroportuario del Pacífico, S.A.B. de C.V.
Airports & Air Services · Quality-Growth
58
$201.50 · $12.0B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
16.9
TDG leads
TDG
TransDigm Group Incorporated
Aerospace & Defense · Quality-Growth
74.9
$1,107.99 · $61.2B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestPAC17.9x
Fastest growthPAC+23.2%
Highest qualityTDG82 / 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)
PAC
stronger →← stronger
TDG
77
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
82
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
83
69
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
62
TDG is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
PAC
TDG
$252mC
FCF
$1.9bC+
+23.2%A-
Rev
+16.6%B+
1.18C
D/E
Negative equity
17.9xA-
P/E
33.6xC+
1.07B+
PEG
3.05D
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
PAC
TDG
147% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
54% above
~34%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~22%/yr
-65%
1-yr DCF upside
-45%
-60%
5-yr DCF upside
-35%
-50%
10-yr DCF upside
-17%
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
PAC
Why this score
Durable high returns
Cyclical growth
Foreign reporter (MXN)
TDG
Why this score
Durable high returns
The companies
PACGrupo Aeroportuario del Pacífico, S.A.B. de C.V.
Airports & Air Services · $201.50 · beta 0.30
Why now
Airports & Air Services · market cap $12.0b. Down 33% from 52-week high of $300.41 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +23%, comfortably above the S&P median. 7 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $254.49 (implying +26% upside).
Moat
Net margin 31% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 28% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which.
Risk
Down 33% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up.
TDGTransDigm Group Incorporated
Aerospace & Defense · $1,107.99 · beta 0.94
Why now
Aerospace & Defense · market cap $61.2b. Down 24% from 52-week high of $1463.03 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +17%, comfortably above the S&P median. 20 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $1,448 (implying +31% upside).
Moat
Net margin 21% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. $61.2b 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
Trailing P/E 34x 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 PAC and TDG diverge
On the headline score the gap is 16.9 points in favor of TDG. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
GrowthPAC 50.0 · TDG 82.9TDG +32.9
ValuePAC 69.1 · TDG 61.8PAC +7.3
QualityPAC 77.3 · TDG 82.0TDG +4.7
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 TDG or PAC the better stock?
TDG scores higher: TDG 74.9, PAC 58.0 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 TDG and PAC differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where TDG leads by 33 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 TDG and PAC 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.