Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. TDW scored 49.9, WFRD scored 53.0 — WFRD leads.
Compare another set
TDW
Tidewater Inc.
Oil & Gas Equipment & Services · Quality-Growth
49.9
$85.42 · $4.3B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
3.1
WFRD leads
WFRD
Weatherford International plc
Oil & Gas Equipment & Services · Quality-Growth
53
$77.92 · $5.6B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestWFRD15.4x
Fastest growthTDW-1.0%
Strongest balance sheetTDW0.47
Highest qualityWFRD73 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueTDW-54%
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)
TDW
stronger →← stronger
WFRD
66
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
73
44
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
34
42
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
59
WFRD is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
TDW
WFRD
$271mC
FCF
$526mC+
-1.0%D+
Rev
-7.2%D
0.47B
D/E
0.91C+
17.4xB
P/E
15.4xB
0.51A-
PEG
1.17B+
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
TDW
WFRD
54% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
29% below
~-4%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-3%/yr
+65%
1-yr DCF upside
+37%
+117%
5-yr DCF upside
+41%
+228%
10-yr DCF upside
+47%
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.
Oil & Gas Equipment & Services · market cap $4.3b. 16% off the 52-week high of $101.58. PEG 0.51 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 8 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $94.88 (implying +11% upside).
Moat
Net margin 18% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 18% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 110% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Commodity exposure — earnings power tracks the price of the underlying commodity, not management execution. A 15-20% move in the commodity reprices the equity well before fundamentals catch up.
Oil & Gas Equipment & Services · market cap $5.6b. Down 31% from 52-week high of $113.15 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue -7% — in contraction; any catalyst that reverses this triggers re-rating. 12 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $117.08 (implying +50% upside).
Moat
ROE 20% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 144% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Revenue contracting -7% — the operational turn is not yet visible in the top line. Down 31% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Jurisdictional + permitting risk — mining and extraction operations concentrate exposure to political stability, royalty regimes, and environmental review timelines that can stall production for years.
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 TDW and WFRD diverge
On the headline score the gap is 3.1 points in favor of WFRD. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueTDW 42.1 · WFRD 59.2WFRD +17.1
GrowthTDW 44.5 · WFRD 34.5TDW +10.0
QualityTDW 66.4 · WFRD 73.1WFRD +6.7
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 WFRD or TDW the better stock?
WFRD scores higher: WFRD 53.0, TDW 49.9 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 WFRD and TDW differ most?
The widest gap is value, where WFRD 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 WFRD and TDW 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.