FN vs CLS

For growth investors, Celestica Inc.

(CLS) is the stronger pick with 30. 7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 18. 6% for Fabrinet (FN). Celestica Inc. (CLS) offers the better valuation at 56. 8x trailing P/E (41. 2x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Fabrinet (FN) a "Buy" — based on 24 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.

On trailing P/E, Celestica Inc.

(CLS) is the cheapest at 56. 8x versus Fabrinet at 74. 1x. On forward P/E, Celestica Inc. is actually cheaper at 41. 2x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Celestica Inc. wins at 0. 56x versus Fabrinet's 2. 00x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Celestica Inc.

(CLS) delivered a total return of +49. 7%, compared to +687. 5% for Fabrinet (FN). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CLS returned +39. 7% versus FN's +1869%. 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), Fabrinet (FN) is the lower-risk stock at 2.

74β versus Celestica Inc. 's 2. 75β — meaning CLS is approximately 0% more volatile than FN relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Fabrinet (FN) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 0% versus 41% for Celestica Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

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

(CLS) is pulling ahead at 30. 7% versus 18. 6% for Fabrinet (FN). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Celestica Inc. grew EPS 101. 9% year-over-year, compared to 13. 2% for Fabrinet. Over a 3-year CAGR, CLS leads at 20. 3% 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.

Fabrinet (FN) is the more profitable company, earning 9.

7% net margin versus 6. 7% for Celestica Inc. — meaning it keeps 9. 7% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: FN leads at 9. 5% versus 8. 6% for CLS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — FN leads at 12. 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.

The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.

By this metric, Celestica Inc. (CLS) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 56x versus Fabrinet's 2. 00x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Celestica Inc. (CLS) trades at 41. 2x forward P/E versus 49. 9x for Fabrinet — 8. 6x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for CLS: 10. 9% to $459. 00.

None of the stocks in this comparison currently pay a material dividend.

All are effectively zero-yield and should be held for capital appreciation rather than income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Fabrinet (FN) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (+1869% 10Y return).

Celestica Inc. (CLS) carries a higher beta of 2. 75 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (FN: +1869%, CLS: +39. 7%), 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 Technology sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

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.