At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestVNT13.3x
Fastest growthBMI+10.9%
Strongest balance sheetBMI0.03
Highest qualityBMI87 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueVNT-14%
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)
VNT
stronger →← stronger
BMI
76
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
87
39
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
67
43
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
61
BMI is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
VNT
BMI
$385mC
FCF
$150mC
+0.9%C
Rev
+10.9%B
1.61C
D/E
0.03A-
13.3xA-
P/E
30.7xB
0.79A-
PEG
2.96C
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
VNT
BMI
14% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
4% above
~-1%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~9%/yr
+18%
1-yr DCF upside
-13%
+16%
5-yr DCF upside
-4%
+14%
10-yr DCF upside
+10%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Scientific & Technical Instruments · market cap $4.4b. Down 33% from 52-week high of $48.20 — deep drawdown territory. PEG 0.79 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 10 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $40.85 (implying +27% upside).
Moat
ROE 29% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 111% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Down 33% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up.
Scientific & Technical Instruments · market cap $3.8b. Down 36% from 52-week high of $204.00 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +11%, comfortably above the S&P median. 9 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $156.67 (implying +19% upside).
Moat
Net margin 14% 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. FCF converts 120% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
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. Trailing P/E 31x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
The model slightly favors VNT (61.3) over BMI (59.1), primarily due to VNT's superior Value pillar score of 61 and its P/E grade of A (13.5x). A contrarian, however, might prefer BMI for its significantly higher Quality pillar score of 87 and its robust A- Debt/Equity grade of 0.03, indicating stronger financial health.
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 VNT and BMI diverge
On the headline score the gap is 20.9 points in favor of BMI. The widest single difference is Growth, where BMI leads by 28.1 points.
GrowthVNT 38.6 · BMI 66.7BMI +28.1
ValueVNT 42.6 · BMI 61.3BMI +18.7
QualityVNT 76.4 · BMI 87.3BMI +10.9
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 BMI or VNT the better stock?
BMI scores higher: BMI 71.0, VNT 50.1 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 BMI and VNT differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where BMI leads by 28 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. BMI leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are BMI and VNT 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.