Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. VVV scored 52.7, CVNA scored 71.2 — CVNA leads.
Compare another set
VVV
Valvoline Inc.
Auto & Truck Dealerships · Quality-Growth
52.7
$30.27 · $3.9B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
18.5
CVNA leads
CVNA
Carvana Co.
Auto & Truck Dealerships · Quality-Growth
71.2
$63.73 · $70.6B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestCVNA33.7x
Fastest growthCVNA+48.6%
Strongest balance sheetCVNA1.11
Highest qualityCVNA68 / 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)
VVV
stronger →← stronger
CVNA
63
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
68
84
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
92
28
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
57
CVNA is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
VVV
CVNA
$135mC
FCF
$929mC+
+16.1%B+
Rev
+48.6%A
4.75D
D/E
1.11B
37.4xC
P/E
33.7xC
1.10B+
PEG
2.20C
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
VVV
CVNA
52% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
434% above
~21%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
>60%/yr
-44%
1-yr DCF upside
-85%
-34%
5-yr DCF upside
-81%
-18%
10-yr DCF upside
-74%
These two disagree on this pair: the Value pillar ranks cheapness against sector peers, while price-vs-fair-value is an absolute read. A name can be the better value in its sector and still the dearer one on cash flows.
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
VVV
No notable signals flagged.
CVNA
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
The companies
VVVValvoline Inc.
Auto & Truck Dealerships · $30.27 · beta 1.04
Why now
Auto & Truck Dealerships · market cap $3.9b. Down 26% from 52-week high of $41.08 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +16%, comfortably above the S&P median. 16 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $43.13 (implying +42% upside).
Moat
ROE 24% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 133% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
D/E 4.75 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Trailing P/E 37x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
CVNACarvana Co.
Auto & Truck Dealerships · $63.73 · beta 3.55
Why now
Auto & Truck Dealerships · market cap $70.6b. Down 35% from 52-week high of $97.38 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +49% — in hypergrowth territory. 21 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $82.29 (implying +29% upside).
Moat
ROE 59% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. $70.6b 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
Down 35% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 3.55 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. Trailing P/E 34x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
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 VVV and CVNA diverge
On the headline score the gap is 18.5 points in favor of CVNA. The widest single difference is Value, where CVNA leads by 29.7 points.
ValueVVV 27.8 · CVNA 57.5CVNA +29.7
GrowthVVV 83.5 · CVNA 92.2CVNA +8.7
QualityVVV 63.1 · CVNA 68.2CVNA +5.1
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 CVNA or VVV the better stock?
CVNA scores higher: CVNA 71.2, VVV 52.7 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 CVNA and VVV differ most?
The widest gap is value, where CVNA leads by 30 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. CVNA leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are CVNA and VVV 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.