Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. TY scored 76.0, FHI scored 80.0 — FHI leads.
Compare another set
TY
Tri-Continental Corporation
Asset Management · Financial strength
85.6Fin
$34.78 · $1.9B
Strength gap
3.0
FHI leads
FHI
Federated Hermes, Inc.
Asset Management · Financial strength
88.6Fin
$56.52 · $4.2B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestTY5.5x
Fastest growthFHI+10.3%
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.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
TY
FHI
-20.7%F
Rev
+10.3%B
5.5xA
P/E
10.4xA-
16.7%B+
ROE
31.1%A
0.91A-
P/B
3.22C
3.4%B
Yield
2.6%B
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.
The companies
TYTri-Continental Corporation
Asset Management · $34.78 · beta 0.85
Why now
Asset Management · market cap $1.9b. 5% off the 52-week high of $36.55. Revenue -21% — in contraction; any catalyst that reverses this triggers re-rating.
Moat
ROE 17% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately.
Risk
Revenue contracting -21% — the operational turn is not yet visible in the top line. P/S 26.9x embeds aggressive forward growth — disappointing top-line guidance would compress the multiple hard. Balance-sheet financial — book value, net interest margin, and credit loss provisions are the lever points; a rates regime change or a deterioration in the loan book moves the stock more than EPS does.
FHIFederated Hermes, Inc.
Asset Management · $56.52 · beta 0.64
Why now
Asset Management · market cap $4.2b. 16% off the 52-week high of $67.20. Revenue growing +10%, comfortably above the S&P median. 7 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $60.14 (implying +6% upside).
Moat
Net margin 21% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 31% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which.
Risk
Balance-sheet financial — book value, net interest margin, and credit loss provisions are the lever points; a rates regime change or a deterioration in the loan book moves the stock more than EPS does.
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.
Common questions
Is FHI or TY the better stock?
FHI scores higher: FHI 80.0, TY 76.0 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.
How are FHI and TY 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.