Specialty Industrial Machinery · market cap $25.8b. Down 51% from 52-week high of $87.88 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +21%, comfortably above the S&P median. 14 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $62.86 (implying +47% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income.
Risk
Down 51% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 1.97 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. Net margin 0.3% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
VRTVertiv Holdings Co
Electrical Equipment & Parts · $242.78 · beta 2.05
Why now
Electrical Equipment & Parts · market cap $93.5b. Down 36% from 52-week high of $379.94 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +26% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.82 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 28 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $337.43 (implying +39% 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 36% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 169% of net income, helped by cash released from working capital ($1.1b) that doesn't repeat every year.
Risk
Trailing P/E 54.9x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Down 36% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 2.05 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 SYM and VRT diverge
On the headline score the gap is 20.5 points in favor of VRT. The widest single difference is Quality, where VRT leads by 45.1 points.
QualitySYM 41.1 · VRT 86.2VRT +45.1
ValueSYM 41.6 · VRT 50.2VRT +8.6
GrowthSYM 90.2 · VRT 94.1VRT +3.9
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 VRT or SYM the better stock?
VRT scores higher: VRT 74.1, SYM 53.6 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 VRT and SYM differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where VRT leads by 45 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. VRT leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are VRT and SYM 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.