Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. WMS scored 70.6, EME scored 72.5 — EME leads.
Compare another set
WMS
Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc.
Building Products & Equipment · Quality-Growth
70.6
$125.79 · $9.5B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
1.9
EME leads
EME
EMCOR Group, Inc.
Engineering & Construction · Quality-Growth
72.5
$789.45 · $34.8B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestWMS21.4x
Fastest growthEME+16.6%
Strongest balance sheetEME0.13
Highest qualityEME84 / 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)
WMS
stronger →← stronger
EME
81
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
84
70
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
88
62
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
52
EME is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
WMS
EME
$550mC+
FCF
$1.2bC+
+10.4%B
Rev
+16.6%B+
0.97C+
D/E
0.13A-
21.4xB+
P/E
24.6xB
1.19B+
PEG
0.32A
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
WMS
EME
24% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
75% above
~13%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~24%/yr
-26%
1-yr DCF upside
-50%
-19%
5-yr DCF upside
-43%
-9%
10-yr DCF upside
-31%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
WMS
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
EME
Why this score
Durable high returns
The companies
WMSAdvanced Drainage Systems, Inc.
Building Products & Equipment · $125.79 · beta 1.29
Why now
Building Products & Equipment · market cap $9.5b. Down 30% from 52-week high of $179.31 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +10%, comfortably above the S&P median. 11 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $182.45 (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 25% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 122% 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.
EMEEMCOR Group, Inc.
Engineering & Construction · $789.45 · beta 1.12
Why now
Engineering & Construction · market cap $34.8b. 17% off the 52-week high of $951.96. Revenue growing +17%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.32 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 7 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $1,033 (implying +31% upside).
Moat
ROE 40% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which.
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.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
EME leads WMS by 2.2 points (74.4 to 72.2), its sharpest advantage coming in D/E (grade A-). A contrarian could still prefer WMS for its stronger P/E (grade B+). Note they play different roles — EME screens as value, WMS screens as growth — so the model rewards different traits for each.
Our AI analyst is busy right now, so this verdict is drawn directly from the pillars, grades and DCF above.
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 WMS and EME diverge
On the headline score the gap is 1.9 points in favor of EME. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
GrowthWMS 69.9 · EME 88.1EME +18.2
ValueWMS 62.2 · EME 51.5WMS +10.7
QualityWMS 80.9 · EME 83.8level
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 EME or WMS the better stock?
EME scores higher: EME 72.5, WMS 70.6 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 EME and WMS differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where EME leads by 18 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 EME and WMS 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.