Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. VEON scored 71.8, TMUS scored 71.9 — TMUS leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. TMUS's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but VEON'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.
VEON
VEON Ltd.
Telecom Services · Quality-Growth
71.8
$76.81 · $5.3B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
0.1
TMUS leads
TMUS
T-Mobile US, Inc.
Telecom Services · Quality-Growth
71.9
$148.58 · $159.4B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestTMUS17.9x
Fastest growthVEON+9.9%
Strongest balance sheetTMUS2.14
Highest qualityVEON78 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueTMUS-49%
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)
VEON
stronger →← stronger
TMUS
78
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
74
78
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
71
60
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
71
VEON is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
VEON
TMUS
$620mC+
FCF
$18.4bA-
+9.9%B
Rev
+9.7%B
3.05C
D/E
2.14C
98.5xD
P/E
17.9xB
2.23C
PEG
0.61A-
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
VEON
TMUS
39% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
49% below
~0%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-9%/yr
+35%
1-yr DCF upside
+81%
+63%
5-yr DCF upside
+95%
+110%
10-yr DCF upside
+118%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
VEON
No notable signals flagged.
TMUS
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
The companies
VEONVEON Ltd.
Telecom Services · $76.81 · beta 1.61
Why now
Telecom Services · market cap $5.3b. Trading near 52-week high of $78.83 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. 7 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $86.87 (implying +13% upside).
Moat
Net margin 13% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 36% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 105% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
D/E 3.05 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Trailing P/E 98.5x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Trading within 3% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction.
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.
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 VEON and TMUS diverge
The two are effectively level on the headline score. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueVEON 60.5 · TMUS 71.0TMUS +10.5
GrowthVEON 78.4 · TMUS 71.0VEON +7.4
QualityVEON 78.1 · TMUS 73.9VEON +4.2
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 VEON the better stock?
TMUS scores higher: TMUS 71.9, VEON 71.8 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 VEON differ most?
The widest gap is value, where TMUS leads by 11 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 VEON 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.