Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. PWR scored 52.5, ECG scored 72.0 — ECG leads.
Compare another set
PWR
Quanta Services, Inc.
Engineering & Construction · Quality-Growth
52.5
$705.94 · $106.1B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
19.5
ECG leads
ECG
Everus Construction Group, Inc.
Engineering & Construction · Quality-Growth
72
$122.44 · $6.2B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestECG24.6x
Fastest growthECG+30.5%
Strongest balance sheetECG0.47
Highest qualityECG77 / 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)
PWR
stronger →← stronger
ECG
61
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
77
95
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
90
25
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
73
ECG is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
PWR
ECG
$2.4bB
FCF
$250mC
+26.3%A-
Rev
+30.5%A
0.68B
D/E
0.47B+
78.5xD
P/E
24.6xB
1.53C+
PEG
1.33B
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
PWR
ECG
154% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
23% above
~38%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~17%/yr
-68%
1-yr DCF upside
-32%
-61%
5-yr DCF upside
-18%
-47%
10-yr DCF upside
+7%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
PWR
No notable signals flagged.
ECG
Why this score
Durable high returns
Short track record
The companies
PWRQuanta Services, Inc.
Engineering & Construction · $705.94 · beta 1.27
Why now
Engineering & Construction · market cap $106.1b. 10% off the 52-week high of $788.75. Revenue growing +26% — in hypergrowth territory. 29 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $766.01 (implying +9% upside).
Moat
ROE 14% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 180% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash. $106.1b 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 78.5x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Net margin 4.0% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
ECGEverus Construction Group, Inc.
Engineering & Construction · $122.44
Why now
Engineering & Construction · market cap $6.2b. Down 29% from 52-week high of $171.58 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +31% — in hypergrowth territory. 6 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $176.00 (implying +44% upside).
Moat
ROE 33% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 98% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Mature compounder — the risk is paying up for quality at a moment when growth is decelerating. Watch for sequential revenue + margin trends; the inflection from "compounder" to "ex-compounder" is hard to spot until the multiple already started compressing.
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 PWR and ECG diverge
On the headline score the gap is 19.5 points in favor of ECG. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValuePWR 25.1 · ECG 73.3ECG +48.2
QualityPWR 61.1 · ECG 77.0ECG +15.9
GrowthPWR 94.6 · ECG 89.5PWR +5.1
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 ECG or PWR the better stock?
ECG scores higher: ECG 72.0, PWR 52.5 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 ECG and PWR differ most?
The widest gap is value, where ECG leads by 48 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 ECG and PWR 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.