Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. VLTO scored 62.0, ZWS scored 62.6 — ZWS leads.
Compare another set
VLTO
Veralto Corporation
Pollution & Treatment Controls · Quality-Growth
62
$96.93 · $23.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
0.6
ZWS leads
ZWS
Zurn Elkay Water Solutions Corporation
Pollution & Treatment Controls · Quality-Growth
62.6
$46.57 · $7.7B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestVLTO24.4x
Fastest growthZWS+10.0%
Strongest balance sheetZWS0.33
Highest qualityVLTO81 / 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)
VLTO
stronger →← stronger
ZWS
81
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
73
61
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
79
48
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
43
VLTO is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
VLTO
ZWS
$1.0bC+
FCF
$308mC
+5.9%C+
Rev
+10.0%B
1.16C+
D/E
0.33A-
24.4xB
P/E
28.9xB
2.28C
PEG
1.51C+
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
VLTO
ZWS
20% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
24% above
~9%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~13%/yr
-19%
1-yr DCF upside
-27%
-17%
5-yr DCF upside
-19%
-13%
10-yr DCF upside
-7%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Pollution & Treatment Controls · market cap $23.6b. 8% off the 52-week high of $105.75. 15 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $114.00 (implying +18% upside).
Moat
Net margin 17% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 32% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 108% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
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.
Pollution & Treatment Controls · market cap $7.7b. 15% off the 52-week high of $55.00. Revenue growing +10%, comfortably above the S&P median. 9 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $58.00 (implying +25% upside).
Moat
Net margin 12% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 13% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 145% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
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.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
The model favors ZWS (66.8) over VLTO (63) primarily due to its superior Growth pillar score of 82, significantly outpacing VLTO's 67. However, a contrarian might prefer VLTO for its lower 8% implied growth rate, while VLTO also carries a "Short track record" signal.
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 VLTO and ZWS diverge
On the headline score the gap is 0.6 points in favor of ZWS. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
GrowthVLTO 61.0 · ZWS 78.8ZWS +17.8
QualityVLTO 81.2 · ZWS 73.1VLTO +8.1
ValueVLTO 48.2 · ZWS 42.6VLTO +5.6
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 ZWS or VLTO the better stock?
ZWS scores higher: ZWS 62.6, VLTO 62.0 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.
Where do ZWS and VLTO differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where ZWS leads by 18 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 ZWS and VLTO 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.