Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. POST scored 50.3, PEP scored 65.5 — PEP leads.
Compare another set
POST
Post Holdings, Inc.
Packaged Foods · Quality-Growth
50.3
$74.82 · $3.3B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
15.2
PEP leads
PEP
PepsiCo, Inc.
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic · Quality-Growth
65.5
$125.97 · $171.7B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestPOST13.6x
Fastest growthPEP+6.4%
Strongest balance sheetPEP2.31
Highest qualityPEP78 / 100
Largest discount to fair valuePOST-62%
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)
POST
stronger →← stronger
PEP
52
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
78
52
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
56
47
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
64
PEP is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
POST
PEP
$553mC+
FCF
$10.5bA-
+6.2%C+
Rev
+6.4%C+
2.47C
D/E
2.31C
13.6xA-
P/E
16.5xB+
—
PEG
1.31B
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
POST
PEP
62% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
5% above
~-18%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~6%/yr
+155%
1-yr DCF upside
-8%
+163%
5-yr DCF upside
-5%
+175%
10-yr DCF upside
-1%
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
POST
Why this score
Buying back stock
PEP
Why this score
Durable high returns
The companies
POSTPost Holdings, Inc.
Packaged Foods · $74.82 · beta 0.32
Why now
Packaged Foods · market cap $3.3b. Down 36% from 52-week high of $117.28 — deep drawdown territory. 6 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $104.00 (implying +39% upside).
Moat
FCF converts 189% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
D/E 2.47 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Down 36% 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 3.5% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
PEPPepsiCo, Inc.
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic · $125.97
Why now
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic · market cap $171.7b. Down 27% from 52-week high of $171.48 — deep drawdown territory. 22 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $143.86 (implying +14% upside).
Moat
ROE 49% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 96% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash. $171.7b 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 2.31 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Dividend payout 75% of earnings on a 4.6% yield — distribution coverage is thin; one earnings stumble could force a dividend cut.
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 POST and PEP diverge
On the headline score the gap is 15.2 points in favor of PEP. The widest single difference is Quality, where PEP leads by 25.7 points.
QualityPOST 52.5 · PEP 78.2PEP +25.7
ValuePOST 47.0 · PEP 64.1PEP +17.1
GrowthPOST 51.8 · PEP 56.1PEP +4.3
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 PEP or POST the better stock?
PEP scores higher: PEP 65.5, POST 50.3 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 PEP and POST differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where PEP leads by 26 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. PEP leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are PEP and POST 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.