BGSF vs TBI

For growth investors, TrueBlue, Inc.

(TBI) is the stronger pick with 3. 1% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -65. 8% for BGSF, Inc. (BGSF). Analysts rate TrueBlue, Inc. (TBI) a "Buy" — based on 10 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.

Over the past 5 years, BGSF, Inc.

(BGSF) delivered a total return of -32. 2%, compared to -78. 7% for TrueBlue, Inc. (TBI). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: BGSF returned -15. 8% versus TBI's -68. 4%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), BGSF, Inc.

(BGSF) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 95β versus TrueBlue, Inc. 's 1. 13β — meaning TBI is approximately 19% more volatile than BGSF relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, BGSF, Inc. (BGSF) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 3% versus 62% for TrueBlue, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), TrueBlue, Inc.

(TBI) is pulling ahead at 3. 1% versus -65. 8% for BGSF, Inc. (BGSF). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: TrueBlue, Inc. grew EPS 61. 4% year-over-year, compared to -125. 8% for BGSF, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, TBI leads at -10. 5% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.

TrueBlue, Inc.

(TBI) is the more profitable company, earning -3. 0% net margin versus -8. 3% for BGSF, Inc. — meaning it keeps -3. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: TBI leads at -1. 7% versus -10. 0% for BGSF. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — BGSF leads at 34. 1%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.

In this comparison, BGSF (38.

9% yield) pays a dividend. TBI does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, BGSF, Inc.

(BGSF) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 95), 38. 9% yield). Both have compounded well over 10 years (BGSF: -15. 8%, TBI: -68. 4%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.

Both stocks operate in the Industrials sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

In terms of investment character: BGSF is a small-cap income-oriented stock; TBI is a small-cap quality compounder stock. BGSF pays a dividend while TBI does not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.