Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. PACS scored 70.1, AVAH scored 76.3 — AVAH leads.
Compare another set
PACS
PACS Group, Inc.
Medical Care Facilities · Quality-Growth
70.1
$43.30 · $6.9B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
6.2
AVAH leads
AVAH
Aveanna Healthcare Holdings Inc.
Medical Care Facilities · Quality-Growth
76.3
$12.25 · $2.7B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestAVAH9.7x
Fastest growthAVAH+19.5%
Strongest balance sheetPACS3.05
Highest qualityPACS63 / 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)
PACS
stronger →← stronger
AVAH
63
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
60
89
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
89
62
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
84
PACS and AVAH split the three pillars evenly.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
PACS
AVAH
$121mC
FCF
$154mC
+15.2%B+
Rev
+19.5%B+
3.05D
D/E
5.23D
25.3xB
P/E
9.7xA
1.10B+
PEG
0.96B+
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
PACS
AVAH
197% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
64% above
~39%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~21%/yr
-71%
1-yr DCF upside
-44%
-66%
5-yr DCF upside
-39%
-59%
10-yr DCF upside
-33%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
PACS
Why this score
Short track record
AVAH
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
The companies
PACSPACS Group, Inc.
Medical Care Facilities · $43.30 · beta -0.08
Why now
Medical Care Facilities · market cap $6.9b. 13% off the 52-week high of $49.49. Revenue growing +15%, comfortably above the S&P median. 6 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $59.00 (implying +36% upside).
Moat
ROE 24% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately.
Risk
D/E 3.05 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Net margin 4.8% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
AVAHAveanna Healthcare Holdings Inc.
Medical Care Facilities · $12.25 · beta 1.95
Why now
Medical Care Facilities · market cap $2.7b. 17% off the 52-week high of $14.71. Revenue growing +20%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.96 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 10 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $14.85 (implying +21% upside).
Moat
ROE 96% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which.
Risk
D/E 5.23 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Beta 1.95 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return.
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 PACS and AVAH diverge
On the headline score the gap is 6.2 points in favor of AVAH. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValuePACS 61.5 · AVAH 83.8AVAH +22.3
QualityPACS 63.1 · AVAH 59.6PACS +3.5
GrowthPACS 88.9 · AVAH 88.9level
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 AVAH or PACS the better stock?
AVAH scores higher: AVAH 76.3, PACS 70.1 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 AVAH and PACS differ most?
The widest gap is value, where AVAH leads by 22 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 AVAH and PACS 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.