Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. TMUS scored 71.9, TIMB scored 59.9 — TMUS leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. TMUS's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but TIMB'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.
TMUS
T-Mobile US, Inc.
Telecom Services · Quality-Growth
71.9
$148.58 · $159.4B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
12.0
TMUS leads
TIMB
TIM S.A.
Telecom Services · Quality-Growth
59.9
$17.98 · $8.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestTIMB10.6x
Fastest growthTMUS+9.7%
Strongest balance sheetTIMB0.66
Highest qualityTIMB83 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueTIMB-72%
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)
TMUS
stronger →← stronger
TIMB
74
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
83
71
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
56
71
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
64
TMUS is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
TMUS
TIMB
$18.4bA-
FCF
$1.8bC+
+9.7%B
Rev
+4.6%C+
2.14C
D/E
0.66B
17.9xB
P/E
10.6xA-
0.61A-
PEG
1.35B
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
TMUS
TIMB
49% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
72% below
~-9%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-23%/yr
+81%
1-yr DCF upside
+234%
+95%
5-yr DCF upside
+258%
+118%
10-yr DCF upside
+295%
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.
Model signals
TMUS
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
TIMB
Why this score
Durable high returns
Cut its dividend
Foreign reporter (BRL)
The companies
TMUST-Mobile US, Inc.
Telecom Services · $148.58 · beta 0.32
Why now
Telecom Services · market cap $159.4b. Down 36% from 52-week high of $230.65 — deep drawdown territory. PEG 0.61 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 25 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $241.24 (implying +62% upside).
Moat
ROE 19% is above 15% — 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. $159.4b 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. 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.
TIMBTIM S.A.
Telecom Services · $17.98 · beta 0.09
Why now
Telecom Services · market cap $8.5b. Down 36% from 52-week high of $28.22 — deep drawdown territory. 8 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $24.24 (implying +35% upside).
Moat
Net margin 16% 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. Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of depreciation and amortization ($1.4b) — non-cash charges that hold down reported earnings while cash generation stays strong.
Risk
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. Dividend payout 88% of earnings on a 8.4% yield — distribution coverage is thin; one earnings stumble could force a dividend cut.
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 TMUS and TIMB diverge
On the headline score the gap is 12.0 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.
GrowthTMUS 71.0 · TIMB 56.0TMUS +15.0
QualityTMUS 73.9 · TIMB 82.5TIMB +8.6
ValueTMUS 71.0 · TIMB 64.0TMUS +7.0
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 TMUS or TIMB the better stock?
TMUS scores higher: TMUS 71.9, TIMB 59.9 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 TMUS and TIMB differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where TMUS leads by 15 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 TMUS and TIMB 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.