COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
KYIV vs TMUS
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. KYIV scored 68.3, TMUS scored 71.4 — TMUS leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. TMUS's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but KYIV's are as of December 2025 — a 6-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
KYIV
Kyivstar Group Ltd.
68.3
$13.25 · $3.1B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
3.1
TMUS leads
TMUS
T-Mobile US, Inc.
71.4
$183.04 · $196.3B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestTMUS19.2x
- Fastest growthKYIV+25.9%
- Strongest balance sheetKYIV0.39
- Highest qualityTMUS74 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueKYIV-53%
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)
KYIV
stronger →← stronger
TMUS
67
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
74
88
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
74
54
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
67
TMUS is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
KYIV
TMUS
$311mC
FCF
$18.4bA-
+25.9%A-
Rev
+9.7%B
0.39B+
D/E
2.14C
19.2xB
P/E
19.2xB
1.28B
PEG
0.84B+
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
KYIV
TMUS
53% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
48% below
~-7%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~-5%/yr
+73%
1-yr DCF upside
+59%
+113%
5-yr DCF upside
+93%
+188%
10-yr DCF upside
+157%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
KYIV
Why this score
- Diluting shareholders
- Short track record
TMUS
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Raising its dividend
The companies
KYIVKyivstar Group Ltd.
Why now
Telecom Services · market cap $3.1b. 20% off the 52-week high of $16.55. Revenue growing +26% — in hypergrowth territory. 9 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $17.96 (implying +36% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income — non-cash charges (depreciation, intangible amortization) are holding down GAAP earnings while cash generation stays strong.
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.
TMUST-Mobile US, Inc.
Why now
Telecom Services · market cap $196.3b. Down 29% from 52-week high of $258.66 — deep drawdown territory. PEG 0.84 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 24 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $243.38 (implying +33% upside).
Moat
ROE 19% sits above Buffett's preferred 15% threshold — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 174% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined. $196.3b market cap gives the company enough scale to absorb fixed costs that subscale competitors can't, without yet being so large that growth has to come from acquisition.
Risk
D/E 2.14 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
TMUS leads KYIV by 3.3 points (71.4 to 68.1), its sharpest advantage coming in FCF (grade A-). A contrarian could still prefer KYIV, which trades about 53% below our DCF fair value — a margin of safety the score doesn't reward. Note they play different roles — KYIV screens as growth, TMUS screens as value — so the model rewards different traits for each.
Our AI analyst is busy right now, so this verdict is drawn directly from the pillars, grades and DCF above.
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 KYIV and TMUS diverge
On the headline score the gap is 3.1 points in favor of TMUS. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- GrowthKYIV 88.2 · TMUS 73.9KYIV +14.3
- ValueKYIV 53.6 · TMUS 66.8TMUS +13.2
- QualityKYIV 67.4 · TMUS 73.6TMUS +6.2
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.