COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
EPAC vs VRT
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. EPAC scored 78.8, VRT scored 74.1 — EPAC leads.
Compare another set
EPAC
Enerpac Tool Group Corp.
78.8
$36.99 · $1.9B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
4.7
EPAC leads
VRT
Vertiv Holdings Co
74.1
$264.63 · $101.9B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestEPAC21.0x
- Fastest growthVRT+26.2%
- Strongest balance sheetEPAC0.44
- Highest qualityEPAC86 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueEPAC-13%
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)
EPAC
stronger →← stronger
VRT
86
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
86
61
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
91
92
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
52
EPAC and VRT split the three pillars evenly.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
EPAC
VRT
$112mC
FCF
$2.9bB
+4.3%C+
Rev
+26.2%A-
0.44B+
D/E
0.70B
21.0xB+
P/E
60.0xD
0.34A
PEG
1.28B
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
EPAC
VRT
13% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
158% above
~4%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~43%/yr
+4%
1-yr DCF upside
-70%
+14%
5-yr DCF upside
-61%
+32%
10-yr DCF upside
-45%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
EPAC
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Durable high returns
VRT
Why this score
- Durable high returns
The companies
EPACEnerpac Tool Group Corp.
Why now
Specialty Industrial Machinery · market cap $1.9b. 18% off the 52-week high of $45.00. PEG 0.34 — paying under fair value for the growth rate.
Moat
Net margin 15% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 22% sits above Buffett's preferred 15% threshold — 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, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Value re-rating depends on a catalyst. Without one — analyst day, divestiture, margin recovery, capital return — the stock can stay cheap on these multiples for years.
VRTVertiv Holdings Co
Why now
Electrical Equipment & Parts · market cap $101.9b. Down 30% from 52-week high of $379.94 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +26% — in hypergrowth territory. 26 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $338.15 (implying +28% upside).
Moat
Net margin 15% 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 169% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Trailing P/E 60.0x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Down 30% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 2.08 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
The model favors EPAC (79) over VRT (76.8) due to its superior valuation, highlighted by EPAC's Value pillar of 93 versus VRT's 53. A contrarian, however, might prefer VRT for its robust growth, with a Growth pillar of 99 and +26.2% revenue expansion, despite its price being 182% above fair value.
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 EPAC and VRT diverge
On the headline score the gap is 4.7 points in favor of EPAC. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- ValueEPAC 92.3 · VRT 52.0EPAC +40.3
- GrowthEPAC 61.4 · VRT 90.8VRT +29.4
- QualityEPAC 86.2 · VRT 86.1level
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.