Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. SHOO scored 67.7, BIRK scored 68.5 — BIRK leads.
Compare another set
SHOO
Steven Madden, Ltd.
Footwear & Accessories · Quality-Growth
67.7
$44.30 · $3.2B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
0.8
BIRK leads
BIRK
Birkenstock Holding plc
Footwear & Accessories · Quality-Growth
68.5
$33.65 · $5.6B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestBIRK15.5x
Fastest growthSHOO+18.2%
Strongest balance sheetSHOO0.39
Highest qualitySHOO70 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueSHOO-18%
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)
SHOO
stronger →← stronger
BIRK
70
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
60
90
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
87
49
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
72
SHOO is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
SHOO
BIRK
$224mC
FCF
$327mC
+18.2%B+
Rev
+16.2%B+
0.39A-
D/E
0.69B+
22.1xC+
P/E
15.5xB+
2.17C
PEG
0.95B+
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
SHOO
BIRK
18% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
2% above
~6%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~13%/yr
+2%
1-yr DCF upside
-19%
+22%
5-yr DCF upside
-2%
+58%
10-yr DCF upside
+27%
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
SHOO
No notable signals flagged.
BIRK
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
Short track record
Foreign reporter (EUR)
The companies
SHOOSteven Madden, Ltd.
Footwear & Accessories · $44.30 · beta 1.18
Why now
Footwear & Accessories · market cap $3.2b. 11% off the 52-week high of $49.70. Revenue growing +18%, comfortably above the S&P median. 10 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $52.40 (implying +18% upside).
Moat
ROE 15% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 157% 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.
BIRKBirkenstock Holding plc
Footwear & Accessories · $33.65 · beta 1.30
Why now
Footwear & Accessories · market cap $5.6b. Down 34% from 52-week high of $50.73 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +16%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.95 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 20 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $50.16 (implying +49% upside).
Moat
Net margin 15% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 12% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere.
Risk
Down 34% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up.
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 SHOO and BIRK diverge
On the headline score the gap is 0.8 points in favor of BIRK. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueSHOO 49.2 · BIRK 72.3BIRK +23.1
QualitySHOO 70.4 · BIRK 59.9SHOO +10.5
GrowthSHOO 89.7 · BIRK 86.6SHOO +3.1
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 BIRK or SHOO the better stock?
BIRK scores higher: BIRK 68.5, SHOO 67.7 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 BIRK and SHOO differ most?
The widest gap is value, where BIRK leads by 23 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 BIRK and SHOO 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.