Software - Application
Compare Stocks
2 / 10Stock Comparison
WFCF vs BV
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Specialty Business Services
WFCF vs BV — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Industry | Software - Application | Specialty Business Services |
| Market Cap | $85M | $1.21B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $25M | $2.73B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $2M | $38M |
| Gross Margin | 38.2% | 22.0% |
| Operating Margin | 4.8% | 4.5% |
| Forward P/E | 56.3x | 17.6x |
| Total Debt | $1M | $913M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $3M | $75M |
WFCF vs BV — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Where Food Comes Fr… (WFCF) | 100 | 263.9 | +163.9% |
| BrightView Holdings… (BV) | 100 | 94.8 | -5.2% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: WFCF vs BV
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
WFCF carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 0 yrs, beta 0.19
- Rev growth -3.3%, EPS growth -25.0%, 3Y rev CAGR 0.1%
- 92.8% 10Y total return vs BV's -39.3%
BV is the clearest fit if your priority is value and dividends.
- Lower P/E (17.6x vs 56.3x)
- 2.8% yield; 2-year raise streak; the other pay no meaningful dividend
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | -3.3% revenue growth vs BV's -3.4% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (17.6x vs 56.3x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 6.2% margin vs BV's 1.4% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.19 vs BV's 1.13, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 2.8% yield; 2-year raise streak; the other pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +50.7% vs BV's -10.7% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 10.0% ROA vs BV's 1.1%, ROIC 10.0% vs 3.9% |
WFCF vs BV — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
WFCF vs BV — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 2 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
WFCF leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
BV is the larger business by revenue, generating $2.7B annually — 109.6x WFCF's $25M. Profitability is closely matched — net margins range from 6.2% (WFCF) to 1.4% (BV). On growth, BV holds the edge at +6.1% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $25M | $2.7B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $2M | $265M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $2M | $38M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $1M | $6M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +38.2% | +22.0% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +4.8% | +4.5% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +6.2% | +1.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +5.8% | +0.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -9.3% | +6.1% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -122.1% | -189.2% |
Valuation Metrics
BV leads this category, winning 5 of 5 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 22.8x trailing earnings, BV trades at a 60% valuation discount to WFCF's 56.3x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, BV's 6.7x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than WFCF's 45.1x.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $85M | $1.2B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $84M | $2.0B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 56.30x | 22.77x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 17.62x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 8.80x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 45.07x | 6.69x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 3.43x | 0.45x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 9.38x | 0.70x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 58.82x | 32.17x |
Profitability & Efficiency
WFCF leads this category, winning 9 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
WFCF delivers a 15.7% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $16 in annual profit, vs $2 for BV. WFCF carries lower financial leverage with a 0.15x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to BV's 0.51x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), WFCF scores 7/9 vs BV's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +15.7% | +2.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +10.0% | +1.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +10.0% | +3.9% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +11.0% | +4.7% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.15x | 0.51x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$2M | $839M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $3M | $75M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $1M | $913M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 744.00x | 2.00x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
WFCF leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in WFCF five years ago would be worth $12,294 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $6,930 for BV. Over the past 12 months, WFCF leads with a +50.7% total return vs BV's -10.7%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors BV at 26.4% vs WFCF's 6.4% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +48.2% | +3.0% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +50.7% | -10.7% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +20.6% | +101.9% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +22.9% | -30.7% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +92.8% | -39.3% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +6.4% | +26.4% |
Risk & Volatility
WFCF leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
WFCF is the less volatile stock with a 0.19 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than BV's 1.13 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.19x | 1.13x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $22.15 | $17.11 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $9.26 | $11.06 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +76.3% | +75.9% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 80.3 | 66.0 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 10K | 531K |
Analyst Outlook
BV leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
BV is the only dividend payer here at 2.82% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $13.53 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 13 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +2.8% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 2 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $0.37 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +2.5% | +2.0% |
WFCF leads in 4 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). BV leads in 2 (Valuation Metrics, Analyst Outlook).
WFCF vs BV: Frequently Asked Questions
9 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is WFCF or BV a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Where Food Comes From, Inc.
(WFCF) is the stronger pick with -3. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -3. 4% for BrightView Holdings, Inc. (BV). BrightView Holdings, Inc. (BV) offers the better valuation at 22. 8x trailing P/E (17. 6x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate BrightView Holdings, Inc. (BV) a "Buy" — based on 13 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.
02Which has the better valuation — WFCF or BV?
On trailing P/E, BrightView Holdings, Inc.
(BV) is the cheapest at 22. 8x versus Where Food Comes From, Inc. at 56. 3x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — WFCF or BV?
Over the past 5 years, Where Food Comes From, Inc.
(WFCF) delivered a total return of +22. 9%, compared to -30. 7% for BrightView Holdings, Inc. (BV). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: WFCF returned +92. 8% versus BV's -39. 3%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — WFCF or BV?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Where Food Comes From, Inc.
(WFCF) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 19β versus BrightView Holdings, Inc. 's 1. 13β — meaning BV is approximately 482% more volatile than WFCF relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Where Food Comes From, Inc. (WFCF) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 15% versus 51% for BrightView Holdings, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — WFCF or BV?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Where Food Comes From, Inc.
(WFCF) is pulling ahead at -3. 3% versus -3. 4% for BrightView Holdings, Inc. (BV). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: BrightView Holdings, Inc. grew EPS 185. 0% year-over-year, compared to -25. 0% for Where Food Comes From, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, WFCF leads at 0. 1% 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.
06Which has better profit margins — WFCF or BV?
Where Food Comes From, Inc.
(WFCF) is the more profitable company, earning 6. 2% net margin versus 2. 1% for BrightView Holdings, Inc. — meaning it keeps 6. 2% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: BV leads at 5. 0% versus 4. 8% for WFCF. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — WFCF leads at 38. 2%, 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.
07Which pays a better dividend — WFCF or BV?
In this comparison, BV (2.
8% yield) pays a dividend. WFCF does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
08Is WFCF or BV better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Where Food Comes From, Inc.
(WFCF) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 19)). Both have compounded well over 10 years (WFCF: +92. 8%, BV: -39. 3%), 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.
09What are the main differences between WFCF and BV?
These companies operate in different sectors (WFCF (Technology) and BV (Industrials)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
BV pays a dividend while WFCF 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.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform both.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.