Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. SANM scored 61.5, FN scored 65.7 — FN leads.
Compare another set
SANM
Sanmina Corporation
Electronic Components · Quality-Growth
61.5
$217.49 · $11.7B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
4.2
FN leads
FN
Fabrinet
Electronic Components · Quality-Growth
65.7
$486.28 · $17.4B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestFN37.3x
Fastest growthSANM+58.6%
Strongest balance sheetFN0.00
Highest qualityFN68 / 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)
SANM
stronger →← stronger
FN
51
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
68
83
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
96
55
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
43
FN is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
SANM
FN
$594mC+
FCF
$4mC-
+58.6%A
Rev
+35.7%A
0.88C+
D/E
0.00A
38.9xB
P/E
37.3xB
0.72A-
PEG
1.89C+
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
SANM
FN
54% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
23148% above
~22%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
>60%/yr
-43%
1-yr DCF upside
-100%
-35%
5-yr DCF upside
-100%
-22%
10-yr DCF upside
-99%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
SANM
No notable signals flagged.
FN
Why this score
Durable high returns
The companies
SANMSanmina Corporation
Electronic Components · $217.49 · beta 1.61
Why now
Electronic Components · market cap $11.7b. Down 25% from 52-week high of $288.68 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +59% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.72 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 4 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $260.00 (implying +20% upside).
Moat
ROE 11% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 193% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Beta 1.61 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. Trailing P/E 39x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. Net margin 2.4% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
FNFabrinet
Electronic Components · $486.28 · beta 1.22
Why now
Electronic Components · market cap $17.4b. Down 35% from 52-week high of $748.89 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +36% — in hypergrowth territory. 9 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $734.11 (implying +51% upside).
Moat
ROE 19% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately.
Risk
Down 35% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Trailing P/E 37x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
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 SANM and FN diverge
On the headline score the gap is 4.2 points in favor of FN. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
QualitySANM 51.3 · FN 68.3FN +17.0
GrowthSANM 83.2 · FN 95.7FN +12.5
ValueSANM 54.6 · FN 43.4SANM +11.2
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 FN or SANM the better stock?
FN scores higher: FN 65.7, SANM 61.5 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 FN and SANM differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where FN leads by 17 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 FN and SANM 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.