COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
CL vs TPB
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CL scored 56.7, TPB scored 56.2 — CL leads.
Compare another set
CL
Colgate-Palmolive Company
56.7
$91.08 · $72.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
0.5
CL leads
TPB
Turning Point Brands, Inc.
56.2
$83.41 · $1.7B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestCL35.9x
- Fastest growthTPB+24.5%
- Highest qualityCL89 / 100
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)
CL
stronger →← stronger
TPB
89
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
54
68
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
68
30
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
49
CL and TPB split the three pillars evenly.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CL
TPB
$3.9bB
FCF
$20mC-
+5.2%C+
Rev
+24.5%A-
—
D/E
0.68B
35.9xC
P/E
36.3xC
1.75C+
PEG
0.05A
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
CL
TPB
20% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
243% above
~9%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~48%/yr
-20%
1-yr DCF upside
-78%
-16%
5-yr DCF upside
-71%
-12%
10-yr DCF upside
-56%
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
CL
Why this score
- Durable high returns
TPB
Why this score
- Raising its dividend
- Diluting shareholders
The companies
CLColgate-Palmolive Company
Why now
Household & Personal Products · market cap $72.6b. 8% off the 52-week high of $99.33. 20 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $98.95 (implying +9% upside).
Moat
FCF converts 189% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined. $72.6b 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
Trailing P/E 36x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
TPBTurning Point Brands, Inc.
Why now
Tobacco · market cap $1.7b. Down 43% from 52-week high of $146.90 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +24%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.05 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 6 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $125.17 (implying +50% upside).
Moat
Moat signals from the quantitative card are modest — profitability and capital efficiency are middle-of-pack. The thesis here depends on softer factors (switching costs, brand, distribution, regulatory protection) not captured by the quality-growth screen.
Risk
Down 43% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Trailing P/E 36x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
CL leads TPB by 0.2 points (56.5 to 56.3), its sharpest advantage coming in FCF (grade B). A contrarian could still prefer TPB for its stronger PEG (grade A). All screen as growth-type names but sit in different sectors (Household & Personal Products versus Tobacco), so their grades are relative to different peer sets.
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 CL and TPB diverge
On the headline score the gap is 0.5 points in favor of CL. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- QualityCL 89.0 · TPB 53.8CL +35.2
- ValueCL 30.3 · TPB 48.6TPB +18.3
- GrowthCL 67.7 · TPB 67.8level
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.