Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. SCI scored 47.0, FTDR scored 68.7 — FTDR leads.
Compare another set
SCI
Service Corporation International
Personal Services · Quality-Growth
47
$76.91 · $10.5B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
21.7
FTDR leads
FTDR
Frontdoor, Inc.
Personal Services · Quality-Growth
68.7
$79.80 · $5.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestSCI20.1x
Fastest growthFTDR+9.3%
Strongest balance sheetSCI3.45
Highest qualityFTDR87 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueSCI-5%
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)
SCI
stronger →← stronger
FTDR
73
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
87
49
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
72
29
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
51
FTDR is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
SCI
FTDR
$635mC+
FCF
$386mC
+2.9%C
Rev
+9.3%B
3.45C
D/E
4.17D
20.1xB
P/E
21.1xC+
1.38B
PEG
2.38C
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
SCI
FTDR
5% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
21% above
~3%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~12%/yr
+5%
1-yr DCF upside
-23%
+6%
5-yr DCF upside
-17%
+7%
10-yr DCF upside
-9%
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
SCI
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
FTDR
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
The companies
SCIService Corporation International
Personal Services · $76.91 · beta 0.82
Why now
Personal Services · market cap $10.5b. 15% off the 52-week high of $90.99. 6 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $100.33 (implying +30% upside).
Moat
Net margin 12% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 35% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 118% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
D/E 3.45 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer.
FTDRFrontdoor, Inc.
Personal Services · $79.80 · beta 1.53
Why now
Personal Services · market cap $5.5b. 15% off the 52-week high of $93.43. 5 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $97.40 (implying +22% upside).
Moat
Net margin 13% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 96% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 141% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
D/E 4.17 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Beta 1.53 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 SCI and FTDR diverge
On the headline score the gap is 21.7 points in favor of FTDR. The widest single difference is Growth, where FTDR leads by 23.1 points.
GrowthSCI 49.4 · FTDR 72.5FTDR +23.1
ValueSCI 29.0 · FTDR 51.3FTDR +22.3
QualitySCI 72.8 · FTDR 87.4FTDR +14.6
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 FTDR or SCI the better stock?
FTDR scores higher: FTDR 68.7, SCI 47.0 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 FTDR and SCI differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where FTDR leads by 23 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. FTDR leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are FTDR and SCI 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.