Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. RVLV scored 65.7, CHWY scored 63.0 — RVLV leads.
Compare another set
RVLV
Revolve Group, Inc.
Internet Retail · Quality-Growth
65.7
$21.69 · $1.5B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
2.7
RVLV leads
CHWY
Chewy, Inc.
Internet Retail · Quality-Growth
63
$18.95 · $7.6B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestRVLV21.5x
Fastest growthRVLV+10.8%
Strongest balance sheetRVLV0.06
Highest qualityCHWY73 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueCHWY-2%
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)
RVLV
stronger →← stronger
CHWY
61
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
73
78
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
71
59
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
48
RVLV is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
RVLV
CHWY
$28mC-
FCF
$568mC+
+10.8%B
Rev
+6.2%C+
0.06A
D/E
3.13C
21.5xC+
P/E
29.2xC
1.08B+
PEG
0.33A
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
RVLV
CHWY
350% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
2% below
~54%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~8%/yr
-81%
1-yr DCF upside
-8%
-78%
5-yr DCF upside
+2%
-73%
10-yr DCF upside
+17%
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
RVLV
No notable signals flagged.
CHWY
Why this score
Durable high returns
The companies
RVLVRevolve Group, Inc.
Internet Retail · $21.69 · beta 1.70
Why now
Internet Retail · market cap $1.5b. Down 32% from 52-week high of $31.68 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +11%, comfortably above the S&P median. 13 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $30.85 (implying +42% upside).
Moat
ROE 13% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere.
Risk
Down 32% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 1.70 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. E-commerce competition — Amazon, Walmart, Shein, and Temu have each forced the rest of the category to compete on price, fulfillment speed, or assortment; sustaining margins requires one of those being structurally defended.
CHWYChewy, Inc.
Internet Retail · $18.95 · beta 1.38
Why now
Internet Retail · market cap $7.6b. Down 52% from 52-week high of $39.70 — deep drawdown territory. PEG 0.33 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 22 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $28.64 (implying +51% upside).
Moat
ROE 72% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of stock-based pay ($298m) — a real cost to shareholders, paid in shares rather than cash.
Risk
D/E 3.13 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Down 52% 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 2.1% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
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 RVLV and CHWY diverge
On the headline score the gap is 2.7 points in favor of RVLV. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
QualityRVLV 61.5 · CHWY 73.3CHWY +11.8
ValueRVLV 59.2 · CHWY 48.4RVLV +10.8
GrowthRVLV 77.8 · CHWY 70.5RVLV +7.3
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 RVLV or CHWY the better stock?
RVLV scores higher: RVLV 65.7, CHWY 63.0 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 RVLV and CHWY differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where CHWY leads by 12 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 RVLV and CHWY 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.