COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
CSAN vs PARR
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CSAN scored 54.9, PARR scored 68.4 — PARR leads.
Compare another set
CSAN
Cosan S.A.
54.9
$2.75 · $2.7B
Score gap
13.5
PARR leads
PARR
Par Pacific Holdings, Inc.
68.4
$79.03 · $4.0B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- Fastest growthPARR+13.2%
- Strongest balance sheetPARR0.56
- Highest qualityPARR73 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueCSAN-85%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
CSAN
stronger →← stronger
PARR
45
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
73
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
100
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
88
CSAN and PARR split the three pillars evenly.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CSAN
PARR
$1.0bC+
FCF
$412mC
+11.4%B
Rev
+13.2%B+
1.10C
D/E
0.56B
0.4xA
P/S
—
—
P/E
4.6xA
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
CSAN
PARR
85% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
34% below
decline
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~-11%/yr
+500%
1-yr DCF upside
+69%
+568%
5-yr DCF upside
+52%
+678%
10-yr DCF upside
+30%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
CSAN
Why this score
- Cyclical growth
- Foreign reporter (BRL)
PARR
Why this score
- Cyclical growth
The companies
CSANCosan S.A.
Why now
Oil & Gas Refining & Marketing · market cap $2.7b. Down 54% from 52-week high of $6.00 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +11%, comfortably above the S&P median. 4 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $3.63 (implying +32% upside).
Moat
Turnaround / out-of-favor name — GAAP-unprofitable for now, so the durability case is forward-looking: it rests on a recovery (margin normalization, a cyclical upturn or restructuring) or an un-monetized asset (IP / network effects / first-mover position) rather than on current reported results.
Risk
Currently unprofitable (margin -18.6%) — path to GAAP profitability is the core thesis risk. Down 54% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. ROE -21% is below the long-run sustainable threshold of ~10% — capital efficiency would need to improve for the equity base to compound at the market rate.
PARRPar Pacific Holdings, Inc.
Why now
Oil & Gas Refining & Marketing · market cap $4.0b. 9% off the 52-week high of $87.03. Revenue growing +13%, comfortably above the S&P median. 7 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $83.00 (implying +5% upside).
Moat
ROE 43% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which.
Risk
Jurisdictional + permitting risk — mining and extraction operations concentrate exposure to political stability, royalty regimes, and environmental review timelines that can stall production for years.
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 CSAN and PARR diverge
On the headline score the gap is 13.5 points in favor of PARR. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- QualityCSAN 45.4 · PARR 72.9PARR +27.5
- ValueCSAN 100.0 · PARR 88.0CSAN +12.0
- GrowthCSAN 50.0 · PARR 50.0level
Pillars run 0–100 against sector peers, so a 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.