Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. ROST scored 64.8, TPR scored 73.9 — TPR leads.
Compare another set
ROST
Ross Stores, Inc.
Apparel Retail · Quality-Growth
64.8
$222.41 · $71.3B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
9.1
TPR leads
TPR
Tapestry, Inc.
Luxury Goods · Quality-Growth
73.9
$116.24 · $23.1B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestTPR16.0x
Fastest growthTPR+14.2%
Strongest balance sheetROST0.70
Highest qualityROST83 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueTPR-3%
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)
ROST
stronger →← stronger
TPR
83
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
82
84
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
76
39
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
64
ROST is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
ROST
TPR
$2.8bB
FCF
$1.8bC+
+14.0%B+
Rev
+14.2%B+
0.70B+
D/E
5.72D
27.2xC
P/E
16.0xB+
2.07C
PEG
1.66C+
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
ROST
TPR
23% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
3% below
~14%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~7%/yr
-28%
1-yr DCF upside
-6%
-19%
5-yr DCF upside
+3%
-4%
10-yr DCF upside
+18%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
ROST
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
TPR
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
The companies
ROSTRoss Stores, Inc.
Apparel Retail · $222.41 · beta 0.84
Why now
Apparel Retail · market cap $71.3b. 13% off the 52-week high of $257.00. Revenue growing +14%, comfortably above the S&P median. 18 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $270.56 (implying +22% upside).
Moat
ROE 39% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 105% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash. $71.3b 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
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.
TPRTapestry, Inc.
Luxury Goods · $116.24 · beta 1.43
Why now
Luxury Goods · market cap $23.1b. Down 29% from 52-week high of $164.80 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +14%, comfortably above the S&P median. 20 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $166.50 (implying +43% upside).
Moat
Net margin 19% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. FCF converts 119% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
D/E 5.72 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Beta 1.43 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 ROST and TPR diverge
On the headline score the gap is 9.1 points in favor of TPR. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueROST 39.0 · TPR 64.5TPR +25.5
GrowthROST 83.7 · TPR 76.0ROST +7.7
QualityROST 83.2 · TPR 82.3level
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 TPR or ROST the better stock?
TPR scores higher: TPR 73.9, ROST 64.8 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 TPR and ROST differ most?
The widest gap is value, where TPR leads by 26 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 TPR and ROST 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.