Quick Summary — HLLY scores higher on quality with 9.3/10 vs GT's 5.2/10. GT trades at $5.90 while HLLY trades at $2.62. Both analyzed daily using SEC EDGAR data across 13 institutional models.
HLLY scores higher with a 9.3/10 quality rating vs GT's 5.2/10. Both stocks are analyzed daily using SEC EDGAR filings across 13 independent models.
At $5.90, GT trades +88.6% above its Bayesian DCF fair value of $0.80, while HLLY at $2.62 trades +75.5% above its estimate of $0.64. GT shows a wider gap between price and intrinsic value.
GT earns a Quality of Company score of 5.2/10 compared to HLLY's 9.3/10. This is a significant quality gap — the higher-scoring company demonstrates materially stronger fundamentals across profitability, growth consistency, and balance sheet health. The QOC score synthesizes 32 signals spanning profitability margins, revenue growth, free cash flow, capital allocation, and leverage.
GT carries a SAFE value trap risk (20/100) while HLLY shows SAFE risk (6/100). Both companies show manageable value trap risk, suggesting their current valuations are not artificially depressed by fundamental deterioration.
Both GT and HLLY operate in Auto Parts, which has 52 stocks tracked by CirclFi. Same-industry comparisons provide the most direct insight into relative valuation since both companies face similar regulatory environments, market dynamics, and competitive pressures. Both companies are analyzed with models spanning intrinsic (Bayesian DCF, EPV), scenario-based (First Chicago), regime-switching (Markov DDM, RCMH-DCF), machine learning (ML-RIV, FTNN), and ensemble methods (CUCE).
11 hidden models compare GT vs HLLY differently — including EROIC Spread, First Chicago, Markov DDM, PWERM, and 7 more. Some may disagree with the 2 you see above.
Bloomberg Terminal: ~$2,000/mo · FactSet: ~$1,000/mo · CirclFi: $0.90/day
See All 13 Models — $0.90/dayWe don’t predict prices. We show you what 13 independent mathematical frameworks say a stock is worth — and let you decide.