COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
AMRZ vs TGLS
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. AMRZ scored 56.4, TGLS scored 60.2 — TGLS leads.
Compare another set
AMRZ
Amrize Ltd
56.4
$45.68 · $25.0B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
3.8
TGLS leads
TGLS
Tecnoglass Holdings Inc.
60.2
$41.03 · $1.8B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- Fastest growthTGLS+9.9%
- Strongest balance sheetTGLS0.29
- Highest qualityTGLS74 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueAMRZ-4%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
AMRZ
stronger →← stronger
TGLS
59
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
74
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
61
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
59
AMRZ and TGLS split the three pillars evenly.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
AMRZ
TGLS
$1.3bC+
FCF
-$9mF
+5.1%C+
Rev
+9.9%B
0.55C+
D/E
0.29B+
20.5xB
P/E
—
1.38B
PEG
0.73A-
—
P/S
1.7xB+
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
AMRZ
TGLS
4% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
—
~9%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
—
-12%
1-yr DCF upside
—
+5%
5-yr DCF upside
—
+35%
10-yr DCF upside
—
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
AMRZ
Why this score
- Cyclical growth
- Short track record
TGLS
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Raising its dividend
- Durable high returns
- Cyclical growth
The companies
AMRZAmrize Ltd
Why now
Building Materials · market cap $25.0b. Down 31% from 52-week high of $65.94 — deep drawdown territory. 19 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $57.24 (implying +25% upside).
Moat
FCF converts 108% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined. Mining moat is reserve quality + extraction cost per unit — top-quartile cost producers generate cash through the commodity cycle while marginal producers burn it.
Risk
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. 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.
TGLSTecnoglass Holdings Inc.
Why now
Building Materials · market cap $1.8b. Down 45% from 52-week high of $74.02 — deep drawdown territory. PEG 0.73 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 3 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $56.33 (implying +37% 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 16% sits above Buffett's preferred 15% threshold — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. Mining moat is reserve quality + extraction cost per unit — top-quartile cost producers generate cash through the commodity cycle while marginal producers burn it.
Risk
Free cash flow is negative (-$9m) — capital raises or debt issuance likely required; dilution / leverage risk. Down 45% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 1.41 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 AMRZ and TGLS diverge
On the headline score the gap is 3.8 points in favor of TGLS. The widest single difference is Quality, where TGLS leads by 14.8 points.
- QualityAMRZ 59.2 · TGLS 74.0TGLS +14.8
- ValueAMRZ 60.6 · TGLS 59.0level
- GrowthAMRZ 50.0 · TGLS 50.0level
Pillars run 0–100 against sector peers, so a 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.