Which is better, GTX or RMS.PA?

On the Buffett-Fit framework, Hermès International Société en commandite par actions (RMS.PA) currently grades higher than GTX — 79/100 (B grade) vs 57/100 (C). That said, "better" depends on which framework you trust — GTX wins on none; RMS.PA wins on Warren Buffett, Benjamin Graham, Philip Fisher, Peter Lynch, Charlie Munger, and Terry Smith. The full pillar breakdown is on this page.

Should I buy GTX or RMS.PA?

This page is an educational comparison, not investment advice. Both GTX and RMS.PA are graded against the same Buffett 5-pillar framework (moat, earnings durability, management quality, financial health, valuation) plus six other documented investor frameworks. Read the side-by-side breakdown to see which one matches the criteria you care about most — and always do your own research before making any investment decision.

Is GTX better than RMS.PA for value investing?

On the Buffett-style value-investing framework, RMS.PA currently grades higher — 79/100 vs 57/100, a 22-point gap. The gap is driven by which pillars each stock passes; the table on this page shows moat, durability, management, financial health, and valuation side-by-side.

What's the difference between GTX and RMS.PA on Warren Buffett's framework?

Both stocks are evaluated on the same five pillars: economic moat (durable competitive advantage), earnings durability (consistent profitability), management quality (capital allocation), financial health (conservative balance sheet), and valuation (margin of safety). GTX currently scores 57/100 (C grade); RMS.PA scores 79/100 (B grade). The "Where each wins" section on this page breaks down which pillar each stock dominates.

Which has the stronger moat, GTX or RMS.PA?

Moat strength is one of the five pillars in the Buffett-Fit score on this page. GTX and RMS.PA are each scored on ROIC sustainability, gross-margin durability, and qualitative signals like brand strength, switching costs, network effects, and regulatory barriers. The pillar breakdown on this page shows the moat sub-score side-by-side so you can see which one has the more durable competitive advantage.

Which is more undervalued, GTX or RMS.PA?

Valuation is one of the five Buffett-Fit pillars on this page. Both stocks are scored on owner-earnings yield, price-to-intrinsic-value vs the underlying compounding rate, and the margin of safety relative to a conservative DCF. The valuation sub-score in the table below tells you which one currently trades at a more attractive price relative to its underlying business quality.

Are GTX and RMS.PA both Consumer Cyclical stocks?

Yes — both Garrett Motion Inc. (GTX) and Hermès International Société en commandite par actions (RMS.PA) operate in the Consumer Cyclical sector. That makes this a direct sector-peer comparison, which is the apples-to-apples way to use the Buffett-Fit framework: the score weighs each stock against its sector's specific quality and valuation benchmarks (sector-relative bonus), so the cross-stock comparison isn't distorted by inter-sector base-rate differences.

Is this GTX vs RMS.PA comparison investment advice?

No. This page is an educational pattern-match against documented public frameworks (Buffett, Graham, Fisher, Lynch, Greenblatt, Munger, Smith), not personalised investment advice. The scores reflect how closely each stock matches each framework's documented criteria — they are not buy/hold/sell recommendations. Always do your own research and consult a licensed financial adviser for personalised advice.

Stock comparison

Garrett Motion

GTX$5.94BConsumer Discretionary Market cap, Sector

Hermès International Société en commandite par actions

RMS.PA$171.88BConsumer Discretionary Market cap, Sector

Overall winner

Hermès International Société en commandite par actions

GTX 06 RMS.PA

Wins on the combined sum of fit scores across all four strategies. Per-strategy breakdown below.

Scored across Buffett, Graham, Lynch and Greenblatt - plus a side-by-side metric table covering valuation, quality, growth and balance sheet.

Fit scores by strategy

GTX0wins

6winsRMS.PA

Warren Buffett

57D

B79

Benjamin Graham

51D

A90

Philip Fisher

37F

B84

Peter Lynch

14F

C69

Joel Greenblatt

61C

C61

Charlie Munger

59D

A86

Terry Smith

55D

A85

Side-by-side metrics

Metric	GTX	RMS.PA
Market cap	$5.94B	$171.88B Winner
P/E (TTM)	Winner: 18.1x	38.1x
EV/EBIT	Winner: 15.1x	23.8x
ROIC (TTM)	Winner: 42.85%	24.18%
Gross margin	24.25%	71.11% Winner
Net margin	9.29%	28.27% Winner
Revenue CAGR 5y	-0.34%	11.31% Winner
EPS CAGR 5y	-31.65%	16.93% Winner
Debt / Equity	Winner: -	0.1x
Dividend yield	0.85%	-

Where each one wins

The metrics with the biggest gap between the two - sorted so the most decisive edges read first.

GTX leads on

Debt / Equity-vs 0.1x+107%
P/E (TTM)18.1xvs 38.1x+53%
ROIC (TTM)42.85%vs 24.18%+44%
EV/EBIT15.1xvs 23.8x+36%

RMS.PA leads on

EPS CAGR 5y16.93%vs -31.65%+153%
Revenue CAGR 5y11.31%vs -0.34%+103%
Market cap$171.88Bvs $5.94B+97%
Net margin28.27%vs 9.29%+67%

More like GTX

GTX vs GRGD.TO GTX vs GAW.L GTX vs WINA GTX vs 2059.TW

More like RMS.PA

RMS.PA vs GRGD.TO RMS.PA vs GAW.L RMS.PA vs WINA RMS.PA vs 2059.TW

Read the full Buffett-Brain analysis for GTX Read the full Buffett-Brain analysis for RMS.PA

Related on invest-like

Strongest Moat Highest ROIC Warren Buffett strategy Economic Moat

Key terms in this analysis

ROIC Free Cash Flow (FCF)Economic Moat P/E Ratio Margin of Safety Quality Score

Educational tool. Fit scores are deterministic projections from public financials onto each investor's published criteria - not personal recommendations or advice.

Side-by-side metrics

Metric	GTX	RMS.PA
Market cap	$5.94B	$171.88B Winner
P/E (TTM)	Winner: 18.1x	38.1x
EV/EBIT	Winner: 15.1x	23.8x
ROIC (TTM)	Winner: 42.85%	24.18%
Gross margin	24.25%	71.11% Winner
Net margin	9.29%	28.27% Winner
Revenue CAGR 5y	-0.34%	11.31% Winner
EPS CAGR 5y	-31.65%	16.93% Winner
Debt / Equity	Winner: -	0.1x
Dividend yield	0.85%	-

Where each one wins

The metrics with the biggest gap between the two - sorted so the most decisive edges read first.

GTX leads on

Debt / Equity-vs 0.1x+107%
P/E (TTM)18.1xvs 38.1x+53%
ROIC (TTM)42.85%vs 24.18%+44%
EV/EBIT15.1xvs 23.8x+36%

RMS.PA leads on

EPS CAGR 5y16.93%vs -31.65%+153%
Revenue CAGR 5y11.31%vs -0.34%+103%
Market cap$171.88Bvs $5.94B+97%
Net margin28.27%vs 9.29%+67%