Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. VSNT scored 64.8, NYT scored 70.4 — NYT leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. NYT's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but VSNT'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.
VSNT
Versant Media Group, Inc.
Entertainment · Quality-Growth
64.8
$30.64 · $4.3B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
5.6
NYT leads
NYT
The New York Times Company
Publishing · Quality-Growth
70.4
$66.32 · $10.7B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestVSNT5.8x
Fastest growthNYT+9.2%
Strongest balance sheetNYT0.00
Highest qualityNYT85 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueVSNT-81%
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)
VSNT
stronger →← stronger
NYT
76
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
85
41
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
74
87
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
55
NYT is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
VSNT
NYT
$1.9bC+
FCF
$623mC+
-5.3%D
Rev
+9.2%B
0.39B+
D/E
0.00A
5.8xA
P/E
27.6xC+
0.64A-
PEG
3.79D
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
VSNT
NYT
81% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
4% below
decline
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~6%/yr
+490%
1-yr DCF upside
-3%
+426%
5-yr DCF upside
+4%
+348%
10-yr DCF upside
+16%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
VSNT
Why this score
Short track record
NYT
Why this score
Raising its dividend
The companies
VSNTVersant Media Group, Inc.
Entertainment · $30.64
Why now
Entertainment · market cap $4.3b. Down 48% from 52-week high of $59.00 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue -5% — in contraction; any catalyst that reverses this triggers re-rating. PEG 0.64 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 7 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $44.57 (implying +45% 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 11% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 199% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Revenue contracting -5% — the operational turn is not yet visible in the top line. Down 48% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up.
NYTThe New York Times Company
Publishing · $66.32 · beta 0.92
Why now
Publishing · market cap $10.7b. Down 24% from 52-week high of $87.10 — deep drawdown territory. 9 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $76.89 (implying +16% 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 20% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 159% 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
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 VSNT and NYT diverge
On the headline score the gap is 5.6 points in favor of NYT. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
GrowthVSNT 40.8 · NYT 74.2NYT +33.4
ValueVSNT 87.5 · NYT 55.1VSNT +32.4
QualityVSNT 76.4 · NYT 85.5NYT +9.1
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 NYT or VSNT the better stock?
NYT scores higher: NYT 70.4, VSNT 64.8 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 NYT and VSNT differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where NYT leads by 33 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 NYT and VSNT 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.