COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
SLVM vs WFG
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. SLVM scored 34.3, WFG scored 13.3 — SLVM leads.
Compare another set
SLVM
Sylvamo Corp
34.3
$36.79 · $1.5B
Score gap
21.0
SLVM leads
WFG
West Fraser Timber Co. Ltd.
13.3
$69.75 · $5.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- Fastest growthSLVM-9.3%
- Strongest balance sheetWFG0.07
- Highest qualitySLVM54 / 100
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
SLVM
stronger →← stronger
WFG
54
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
34
15
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
14
51
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
4
SLVM is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
SLVM
WFG
$10mC-
FCF
-$315mF
-9.3%D
Rev
-11.5%D
0.88B
D/E
0.07A-
15.2xB+
P/E
—
—
P/S
1.0xA-
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
SLVM
WFG
913% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
—
~60%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
—
-89%
1-yr DCF upside
—
-90%
5-yr DCF upside
—
-92%
10-yr DCF upside
—
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
SLVM
No notable signals flagged.
WFG
Why this score
- Buying back stock
The companies
SLVMSylvamo Corp
Why now
Paper & Forest · market cap $1.5b. Down 35% from 52-week high of $56.80 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue -9% — in contraction; any catalyst that reverses this triggers re-rating.
Moat
ROE 11% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere.
Risk
Revenue contracting -9% — the operational turn is not yet visible in the top line. 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. Net margin 3.1% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
WFGWest Fraser Timber Co. Ltd.
Why now
Lumber & Wood Production · market cap $5.5b. 9% off the 52-week high of $76.99. Revenue -12% — in contraction; any catalyst that reverses this triggers re-rating. 6 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $84.83 (implying +22% upside).
Moat
Turnaround / out-of-favor name — GAAP-unprofitable for now, so the durability case is forward-looking: it rests on a recovery (margin normalization, a cyclical upturn or restructuring) or an un-monetized asset (IP / network effects / first-mover position) rather than on current reported results.
Risk
Free cash flow is negative (-$315m) — capital raises or debt issuance likely required; dilution / leverage risk. Revenue contracting -12% — the operational turn is not yet visible in the top line. Currently unprofitable (margin -17.2%) — path to GAAP profitability is the core thesis risk.
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 SLVM and WFG diverge
On the headline score the gap is 21.0 points in favor of SLVM. The widest single difference is Value, where SLVM leads by 46.6 points.
- ValueSLVM 50.8 · WFG 4.2SLVM +46.6
- QualitySLVM 54.2 · WFG 33.8SLVM +20.4
- GrowthSLVM 14.7 · WFG 13.8level
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.