Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. TDW scored 49.9, WHD scored 59.2 — WHD leads.
Compare another set
TDW
Tidewater Inc.
Oil & Gas Equipment & Services · Quality-Growth
49.9
$85.42 · $4.3B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
9.3
WHD leads
WHD
Cactus, Inc.
Oil & Gas Equipment & Services · Quality-Growth
59.2
$63.43 · $4.4B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestTDW17.4x
Fastest growthWHD+21.8%
Strongest balance sheetWHD0.03
Highest qualityWHD84 / 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
WHD
66
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
84
44
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
42
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
49
WHD is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
TDW
WHD
$271mC
FCF
$324mC
-1.0%D+
Rev
+21.8%A-
0.47B
D/E
0.03A
17.4xB
P/E
53.3xC
0.51A-
PEG
2.35C
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
WHD
54% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
17% below
~-4%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~9%/yr
+65%
1-yr DCF upside
-4%
+117%
5-yr DCF upside
+21%
+228%
10-yr DCF upside
+67%
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 $4.4b. 14% off the 52-week high of $74.07. Revenue growing +22%, comfortably above the S&P median. 9 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $70.22 (implying +11% upside).
Moat
ROE 13% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 198% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Trailing P/E 53.3x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Beta 1.43 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. Hedge-book exposure — many commodity producers hedge forward production; if the hedge book is concentrated at prices well below spot, the upside the market expects is already locked away.
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 WHD diverge
On the headline score the gap is 9.3 points in favor of WHD. The widest single difference is Quality, where WHD leads by 17.9 points.
QualityTDW 66.4 · WHD 84.3WHD +17.9
ValueTDW 42.1 · WHD 49.2WHD +7.1
GrowthTDW 44.5 · WHD 50.0WHD +5.5
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 WHD or TDW the better stock?
WHD scores higher: WHD 59.2, 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 WHD and TDW differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where WHD leads by 18 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. WHD leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are WHD 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.