Vertiv Holdings Co (VRT) Stock Analysis - DCF Valuation & AI Disruption Risk

VRT — Q2 2026 (reported July 29) showed a beat-on-profit, miss-on-revenue-vs-consensus print: net sales $3.27B (+24% YoY, 18% organic) came in 3.4% below Street consensus on timing shifts tied to supply-chain congestion and multi-phased project execution, but adjusted EPS of $1.52 (+60% YoY) beat by 6.3%, adjusted operating margin expanded 410bps to 22.6%, and adjusted FCF of $925M (+234% YoY) confirmed the cash-conversion story; management raised full-year 2026 guidance across all key metrics and the company ended the quarter in a net cash position with $5.6B of liquidity.

Quantitative model rating — not individualized investment advice.

How Is This Rating Calculated?

1. Margin of safety → quantitative grade

Blended valuation margin-of-safety bands
Margin of safetyQuant gradeScore
MOS > 20.00%Strong Buy5.0
10.00% < MOS ≤ 20.00%Buy4.0
−10.00% < MOS ≤ 10.00%Hold3.0
−20.00% < MOS ≤ −10.00%Reduce2.0
MOS ≤ −20.00%Avoid1.0

2. Auto fundamental penalty

Automatic fundamental-penalty rules
RuleThresholdPenalty
P/E extremeForward (or trailing) P/E > 80x−1.0
P/E elevatedForward (or trailing) P/E 50–80x−0.5
Earnings deterioration, significantEarnings growth < −20%−1.0
Earnings deterioration, mildEarnings growth −5% to −20%−0.5
Stagnant top-lineRevenue growth < 3%−0.5
Unsustainable dividendPayout ratio > 120%−0.5

3. Thesis conviction modifier

Analyst-conviction modifier scale
Conviction levelModifier
Very High+1.00
High+0.60
Medium+0.00
Low-0.60
Very Low-1.00

4. Composite score → final grade

Composite score → grade thresholds
Composite score rangeGrade
Score ≥ 4.50Strong Buy
3.50 ≤ Score < 4.50Buy
2.50 ≤ Score < 3.50Hold
1.50 ≤ Score < 2.50Reduce
Score < 1.50Avoid
VRT Price Target & Rating

VRT's quantitative grade is Hold, with elevated downside risk (CVaR -23.3%), and quality metrics (net margin 15%, ROE 44%). Vertiv Holdings Co (VRT) trades at $257.06 with a Hold composite rating: a trailing P/E of 58.2x at a 164% premium to sector median, net margins of 15.1%, a blended fair-value range of $193–$345 suggesting a +6% margin of safety, beta 2.08 (highly aggressive risk profile).

VRT's blended fair-value range is $193–$345 (base case $273), against a current price of $257.06.

VALUEFAIR RANGEPREMIUM BEAR$192.58BULL$345.14 BASE$273 CURRENT$257 UPSIDE TO BASE+6.3% DCF VALUATION RANGE · VRT
VRT blended fair-value gauge — bear case $193, base case $273, bull case $345, current price $257.06.
Price & DCF data as of

Drag to simulate VRT's price moving between the blended bear ($193) and bull ($345) fair-value anchors — left for a price fall, right for a rise — and see how the margin of safety vs A.L. Capital Advisory's $273 blended base-case fair value changes. Starting point: the page's as-of price of $257.06 on 2026-09-12.

DCF Assumptions
DCF assumptions by scenario
InputBearBaseBull
Stage-1 (near-term) growth3.15%7.00%10.50%
Terminal growth2.20%2.20%2.20%
CAPM cost of equity (discount rate)17.70%16.39%15.08%
Forecast horizon5 years5 years5 years
DCF-to-intrinsic-value blend by scenario
ScenarioPure DCF valueAnalyst target usedBlended intrinsic value (displayed)
Bear$62.34$236.00$192.58
Base$78.85$338.15$273.33
Bull$99.56$427.00$345.14
Analyst-coverage-to-consensus-weight tiers
Analyst coverageWeight
0–1 analysts0.00% consensus / 100.00% DCF
2–4 analysts40.00% consensus / 60.00% DCF
5–19 analysts65.00% consensus / 35.00% DCF
20+ analysts75.00% consensus / 25.00% DCF
  • Valuation: Hold grade — P/E 58.2x — blended fair-value range $193–$345 implies +6% margin of safety
  • Risk: CVaR -23.3% (95th percentile, 1-month) indicates elevated tail exposure; beta of 2.08 amplifies broad market moves in both directions
  • Strengths: Quality 4.0/5, Size 4.0/5, 15% net margin, 44% ROE dominate the factor profile
  • Catalyst: Q3 2026 earnings (expected late October/early November 2026) — test of whether the Q2 revenue-vs-consensus miss was genuinely timing-related, as guided full-year metrics were raised across the board; backlog trajectory and liquid-cooling order mix
  • Bear catalyst: Q3 revenue misses consensus for a second consecutive quarter, adjusted operating margin falls back below 20%, or order backlog growth stalls/declines QoQ
VRT — Quantitative Snapshot September 2026
RatingHold
Price$257.06
Why HoldHigh-quality business at a fully-priced valuation — limited margin for error on earnings
Main riskP/E of 58.2x creates asymmetric downside on any earnings disappointment
Tail riskCVaR -23.3% over one month at the 95th percentile
Blended fair-value range$193–$345 blended fair-value range; margin of safety +6%
Best useCore large-cap Industrials holding — not a source of diversified sector exposure
Next watchEarnings surprise deceleration trend — monitor next quarter delivery closely

VRT's composite five-factor score is 3.0/5, led by Quality (4.0/5) and weakest on Value (2.0/5).

VRT Quantitative Factor Radar Chart Pentagon radar chart showing VRT factor scores: Value 2.0, Quality 4.0, Momentum 3.0, Volatility 2.0, Size 4.0 — each scored on a 1 to 5 scale. VALUE 2.0 QUALITY 4.0 MOMENTUM 3.0 VOLATILITY 2.0 SIZE 4.0
VRT five-factor radar — Value 2.0, Quality 4.0, Momentum 3.0, Volatility 2.0, Size 4.0 (out of 5).
Value
2.0 / 5
Quality
4.0 / 5
Momentum
3.0 / 5
Volatility
2.0 / 5
Size
4.0 / 5
VRT Five-Factor Quantitative Scores
FactorScore
Value2.0 / 5
Quality4.0 / 5
Momentum3.0 / 5
Volatility2.0 / 5
Size4.0 / 5
AI Disruption Risk: Moderate

Vertiv's durability is visible in its order book: the company exited 2025 with a $15 billion backlog (up roughly 109% year-over-year) and a book-to-bill near 2.9x, and by Q1 2026 orders were still up 252% year-over-year, prompting full-year 2026 guidance of $13.5-14.0 billion net sales, implying about 30% organic growth. The clearest disruption risk is customer concentration and cyclicality: Vertiv's backlog is a legally binding but hyperscaler-capex-dependent order book with a 12-18 month delivery window, so any pause in AI data center buildouts by its largest customers would flow through quickly, and Schneider Electric and Eaton are also expanding aggressively in liquid cooling. The metric to watch is book-to-bill and backlog growth quarter over quarter -- a drop toward parity would be the earliest sign hyperscaler order intake is slowing.

VRT Key Metrics — Vertiv Holdings Co 2026
MetricValue
Current Price$257.06
P/E Ratio (TTM)58.2x
Forward P/E28.2x
PEG Ratio0.53x
P/S Ratio8.6
EV/EBITDA37.0
Beta2.08
Net Margin15.1%
ROE43.9%
Debt/Equity70.2%
Dividend Yield0.10%
CVaR (95%, 1M)-23.3%
Market Cap$99.0B
1-Month CVaR Methodology
  • Lookback: most recent 1 year of daily prices.
  • Return input: daily log returns on dividend/split-adjusted close prices.
  • Horizon construction: rolling, overlapping 21-trading-day (~1 calendar month) sums of daily log returns.
  • Confidence level: 95% (worst 5% of the resulting rolling-month observations).
  • Quantile convention: floor-based cutoff — the worst floor(N × 0.05) rolling-month observations (minimum 1), not a rounded or interpolated percentile.
  • CVaR: arithmetic mean of that worst-5% tail, expressed as a percentage.
  • Corporate actions: reflected via adjusted-close pricing (dividends and splits are accounted for).
1M CVaR-95 by lookback window
Method1M CVaR-95
Trailing 1-year historical-23.3%
Trailing 3-year historical-30.5%
Trailing 5-year historical-39.5%
Historical Simulation · Daily Log Returns
VRT — Daily Return Distribution
Vertiv Holdings Co  ·  250 trading days  ·  CVaR illustrated on real data
Sep 2025 – Sep 2026 Daily log returns
95%
-6.69%
1-Day VaR · 95%
95th-percentile loss threshold
-9.08%
1-Day CVaR · 95%
Avg loss in tail
13
Days in tail
of 250 sessions
250
Daily returns
Sep 2025 – Sep 2026
ℹ️
Risk Framework · A.L. Capital Advisory
CVaR & Tail-Risk Methodology
Why variance understates downside risk in non-normal distributions — and how CVaR corrects that blind spot
Analyst View
Anton Ladnyi, CFA · A.L. Capital Advisory Updated 2026-09-12

VRT — Q2 2026 (reported July 29) showed a beat-on-profit, miss-on-revenue-vs-consensus print: net sales $3.27B (+24% YoY, 18% organic) came in 3.4% below Street consensus on timing shifts tied to supply-chain congestion and multi-phased project execution, but adjusted EPS of $1.52 (+60% YoY) beat by 6.3%, adjusted operating margin expanded 410bps to 22.6%, and adjusted FCF of $925M (+234% YoY) confirmed the cash-conversion story; management raised full-year 2026 guidance across all key metrics and the company ended the quarter in a net cash position with $5.6B of liquidity.

↑ Bull Case
  • Adjusted operating margin expanded 410bps YoY to 22.6% even as revenue growth moderated versus consensus — confirming the margin-expansion thesis is structural (operating leverage, favorable price-cost mix) rather than dependent on beating the top line every quarter
  • Adjusted FCF of $925M (+234% YoY) and operating cash flow of $1.1B (+241% YoY) show the cash-conversion inflection called out in prior quarters has continued and accelerated, funding both organic growth and the net-cash balance sheet ($5.6B liquidity) without external financing
  • Americas net sales grew 29% YoY (21% organic) to $2.07B, the clearest read yet that AI-driven data center liquid-cooling demand in Vertiv's core market remains robust even in a quarter where total revenue missed consensus
  • Management explicitly attributed the revenue shortfall vs. consensus to timing (temporary supply-chain congestion, multi-phased project execution as deployments scale in size and complexity) rather than to demand softness, and raised full-year 2026 guidance across all key metrics anyway — a signal that the missed quarter is a recognition-timing issue, not a backlog problem
  • Service revenue growth of 32.9% YoY outpaced product revenue growth (22.2%), showing the installed base of liquid-cooling infrastructure is now generating a recurring, higher-margin revenue stream alongside new equipment sales
↓ Bear Case
  • Revenue missed consensus by 3.4% in a quarter where the entire AI-infrastructure investment case rests on unimpeded execution against a large backlog — even a management-attributed 'timing' miss raises the question of whether backlog-to-revenue conversion is fully within Vertiv's control given multi-phased, complex data-center deployments
  • The stock's underlying valuation still assumes continued 20%+ organic growth; a quarter where organic growth (18%) came in below that framework, even with strong margins, tests whether the multiple can hold if revenue misses become a pattern rather than a one-off
  • Competition from Schneider Electric, Eaton, ABB, and Asian OEMs (Delta, Huawei Power) in liquid cooling continues to build, and a revenue-timing miss — even if temporary — gives competitors a data point to point to in displacing Vertiv on time-sensitive deployments
  • Tariff and supply-chain cost exposure on Asia-sourced components remains a live 2026 risk that this quarter's supply-chain-congestion commentary does not fully resolve
Catalyst: Q3 revenue meets or beats consensus (resolving the Q2 timing question), adjusted operating margin holds above 22%, backlog reaccelerates, or FY26 guidance is raised again
Model downgrade conditions: Q3 revenue misses consensus for a second consecutive quarter, adjusted operating margin falls back below 20%, or order backlog growth stalls/declines QoQ
VRT is not a name I am actively adding to. The business quality is real, but at 58x I am already paying for a lot of the future, and the margin of safety does not justify conviction-sized exposure. The variable I track most closely is gross margin trajectory. That multiple can only be sustained if operating leverage is real — specifically whether the margin profile at scale supports what the market is already pricing in, or whether that future still needs to be earned. A pullback of 10–15% from here would open the margin of safety enough that I would want to add. An earnings miss at the current multiple would do the opposite — that would be the signal to reduce rather than wait.
— Anton Ladnyi, CFA
VRT Earnings History — EPS Surprise Rate 2026
QuarterEPS Est. (consensus)EPS Actual (adjusted, consensus basis)Surprise
Q2 2026$1.43$1.52+6.4%
Q1 2026$1.01$1.17+15.7%
Q4 2025$1.30$1.36+4.9%
Q3 2025$0.99$1.24+25.0%

VRT has beaten consensus EPS estimates in 4 of the last 4 reported quarters (100%).

$0.00$0.50$1.00$1.50$2.00 +25.0%+4.9%+15.7%+6.4% Q3'25Q4'25Q1'26Q2'26 BEAT RATE4/4 ESTIMATEBEATMISS EPS ACTUAL vs ESTIMATE · VRT
VRT quarterly EPS — estimate vs. actual, 4 most recent reported quarters, 100% beat rate.
VRT Forward EPS Consensus Estimates 2026
QuarterEPS Est.YoY EPSAnalysts
Q3 2026$1.83+47.6%23
Q4 2026$2.21+62.7%23
Q1 2027~$1.17+0.0%27
Q2 2027~$2.28+50.0%28
~ Estimated from annual consensus — not a direct analyst survey

Wall Street's next-quarter consensus EPS estimate for VRT is $1.83.

$0.00$0.80$1.60$2.40$3.20 +48%+63%+0%+50% Q3 2026Q4 2026Q1 2027Q2 2027 ESTIMATE TRENDMODEL-IMPLIED ACCELERATING CONSENSUS EPSANALYST RANGEBased on 23–28 analyst estimates per quarter — dashed bars are model-allocated from annual consensus, not direct quarterly surveys EPS FORWARD ESTIMATES · VRT
VRT consensus EPS estimates, next quarter $1.83, 4 quarters shown.
VRT Peer Valuation Comparison 2026
TickerP/E (TTM)Fwd P/EBeta1M CVaR-95Net Margin
VRT58.2x28.2x2.08-23.3%15.1%
NVDA27.6x14.0x2.22-12.2%63.7%
CEG27.9x21.3x1.12-26.8%11.1%
ANET63.4x38.7x1.62-21.5%38.4%
SMCI12.3x7.5x2.00-50.6%5.7%
Revenue growth × exit multiple (editorial, not mechanically reproducible from disclosed inputs) · hover each scenario for detail · current price $257.06
BEAR$130BASE$390BULL$620 $257 ANALYST SCENARIO RANGE · VRT
Bear Case
$130
-49.4%
Implied NTM P/E: 17.3x (target ÷ next-4Q consensus EPS — distinct from the exit multiple below, which is applied to a later-year EPS estimate)
15% revenue CAGR · 25x exit multiple
Base Case
$390
+51.7%
Implied NTM P/E: 52.0x (target ÷ next-4Q consensus EPS — distinct from the exit multiple below, which is applied to a later-year EPS estimate)
28% revenue CAGR · 40x exit multiple
Bull Case
$620
+141.2%
Implied NTM P/E: 82.7x (target ÷ next-4Q consensus EPS — distinct from the exit multiple below, which is applied to a later-year EPS estimate)
42% revenue CAGR · 52x exit multiple

0 of 10 peer pairs correlated above 0.60, indicating meaningful historical diversification across the selected names, although all remain exposed to common equity, sector and macro factors.

Pairwise Correlation Matrix — VRT vs NVDA vs ANET vs CEG vs SMCI 5×5 pairwise correlation matrix showing co-movement between VRT, NVDA, ANET, CEG, SMCI over a trailing 12-month window. VRT NVDA ANET CEG SMCI VRT NVDA ANET CEG SMCI 1.00 0.51 0.49 0.41 0.40 0.51 1.00 0.40 0.31 0.46 0.49 0.40 1.00 0.32 0.33 0.41 0.31 0.32 1.00 0.35 0.40 0.46 0.33 0.35 1.00
VRT pairwise correlation heatmap across 5 peers — 0 of 10 pairs above 0.60.
0 of 10 peer pairs correlated above 0.60, indicating meaningful historical diversification across the selected names, although all remain exposed to common equity, sector and macro factors.
Extended Analysis — Buy, Hold or Sell? Risk Factors. Portfolio Fit.

Is VRT a buy, hold, or sell?

VRT carries a quantitative grade of Hold. The trailing P/E of 58.2 sits 164% above the Industrials sector median of 22.0x — a premium that demands sustained earnings delivery. Our two-stage, EPS-based DCF model produces a pure model range of $62–$100. After blending with Street consensus targets, the displayed fair-value range is $193–$345 — implying a +6% margin of safety vs. blended base fair value at the current price of $257.06. The width of the range reflects genuine uncertainty in the terminal growth rate assumption: the correct framework is a probability-weighted distribution over scenarios, not a single point estimate. See the DCF valuation framework for full methodology.

VRT has beaten consensus estimates in 100% of the last 4 reported quarters, signalling strong execution consistency. The most recent quarter delivered a 6.4% earnings surprise. Analyst estimate revisions are trending upward.

What are VRT's key risk factors?

With a beta of 2.08, VRT exhibits a highly aggressive risk profile relative to the broad market. The 95th-percentile CVaR of -23.3% on a one-month horizon should inform position sizing directly: at a 10% portfolio weight, this standalone tail outcome corresponds to approximately 2.3% of portfolio value before accounting for correlations with other holdings — not a marginal portfolio CVaR contribution, which depends on the full covariance structure. Net margins of 15.1% are significantly above the Industrials sector average of 11%, reflecting durable pricing power. Return on equity of 43.9% indicates highly efficient capital allocation. The balance sheet is conservatively leveraged at 70% debt-to-equity.

The options market shows a put/call ratio of 1.34, reflecting a notably bearish skew in derivative positioning. Implied volatility of 53.6% is below realized volatility of 63.1%, potentially making options relatively cheap. Insiders have been net sellers to the tune of $442.9M over the disclosed transactions from 2024-09-26 to 2026-09-08. While routine dispositions are common, the magnitude bears watching. Short interest is low at 3.6% of float, suggesting limited bearish conviction.

How does VRT fit in a diversified portfolio?

At typical HENRY portfolio weights — 10–20% of the equity allocation — VRT carries a beta of 2.08, meaning it amplifies broad market moves proportionally. The appropriate weight is not a function of conviction alone, but of the full covariance structure across all holdings. See the Ledoit-Wolf covariance framework for the methodology behind these calculations.

Among closely correlated names, VRT shows the strongest co-movement with NVDA (0.51), ANET (0.49), CEG (0.41). Investors seeking diversification should note these correlation dynamics when constructing multi-asset portfolios.

True portfolio risk is a function of the full covariance structure across all holdings — not individual stock metrics. The Portfolio Health Check quantifies this at the portfolio level: it surfaces hidden concentration, marginal CVaR contributions, and the degree to which your overall allocation deviates from an optimal risk-adjusted mandate. The VRT analysis here is a single node in that larger structure.

What is VRT's AI-Era Durability & Disruption Risk Score?

Vertiv's durability is visible in its order book: the company exited 2025 with a $15 billion backlog (up roughly 109% year-over-year) and a book-to-bill near 2.9x, and by Q1 2026 orders were still up 252% year-over-year, prompting full-year 2026 guidance of $13.5-14.0 billion net sales, implying about 30% organic growth. The clearest disruption risk is customer concentration and cyclicality: Vertiv's backlog is a legally binding but hyperscaler-capex-dependent order book with a 12-18 month delivery window, so any pause in AI data center buildouts by its largest customers would flow through quickly, and Schneider Electric and Eaton are also expanding aggressively in liquid cooling. The metric to watch is book-to-bill and backlog growth quarter over quarter -- a drop toward parity would be the earliest sign hyperscaler order intake is slowing.

What is VRT's intrinsic value and DCF price target?

A.L. Capital Advisory's model produces a blended fair-value range (25% pure DCF, 75% analyst consensus) of $193 (bear case) to $345 (bull case) for Vertiv Holdings Co (VRT). At $257.06, the margin of safety vs. blended base case is +6% (positive = discount to fair value; negative = premium). The bear-to-bull spread reflects genuine sensitivity to the two dominant DCF inputs: the terminal growth rate and the CAPM cost of equity (this model discounts EPS, an equity-level metric, so the cost of equity rather than a debt-weighted WACC is the applicable discount rate). Terminal value typically accounts for 60-80% of total intrinsic value in most equity DCF models, which is why a range is more analytically sound than a point estimate. The central analytical question is not what the DCF outputs as a single number but which growth trajectory the current market price already discounts. All DCF analysis follows CFA Institute standards and is conducted by Anton Ladnyi, CFA (ex-Goldman Sachs, ex-J.P. Morgan) · A.L. Capital Advisory. Full methodology: DCF Valuation Framework →

Is VRT a buy or sell in 2026?

Vertiv Holdings Co (VRT) carries a Hold quantitative rating from A.L. Capital Advisory, set by Discounted Cash Flow margin-of-safety band with no analyst-conviction overlay applied. Five-factor model scoring (Value, Quality, Momentum, Volatility, Size) and CVaR tail risk measurement are shown separately on the page. At $257.06, the margin of safety vs. blended base fair value is +6% (blended fair-value range: $193 bear – $345 bull). That places the current price in the Fair Range zone of A.L. Capital Advisory's DCF framework, which sets the quantitative grade component that determines this rating. Composite factor score: 3.0/5. Strongest factor: Quality (4.0/5). Weakest factor: Value (2.0/5). Trailing P/E: 58.2x. Analysis by Anton Ladnyi, CFA (ex-Goldman Sachs, ex-J.P. Morgan) · A.L. Capital Advisory. Full methodology: Rating Methodology (this page) →

What is the average analyst target price for VRT?

Wall Street consensus target for VRT: $338.15 (+31.5% upside from the current price of $257.06). The analyst target range spans $236.00 (most bearish) to $427.00 (most bullish). Consensus recommendation: Strong Buy. Note that analyst price targets typically reflect a 12-month forward horizon and are derived from a blend of DCF, comparable-company, and sum-of-the-parts analysis. A.L. Capital Advisory's Hold composite rating is calculated from the blended margin-of-safety grade, applicable automatic fundamental penalties, and a disclosed qualitative analyst-conviction overlay — not from five-factor scores or CVaR, which are supporting diagnostics shown elsewhere on this page. The displayed blended fair value combines the standalone DCF output with Street consensus for well-covered names (see the DCF Assumptions box for the exact blend weight), so it does not track Street consensus mechanically, but it is not fully independent of it either. When the composite rating and the Street consensus recommendation diverge, the divergence itself is informative: it can reflect differences in time horizon, valuation methodology, or the degree to which the current price already discounts the consensus case. Analysis by Anton Ladnyi, CFA (ex-Goldman Sachs, ex-J.P. Morgan) · A.L. Capital Advisory. Full methodology: Data & Sources (this page) →

How does VRT score on Value, Quality, Momentum, Volatility, and Size?

VRT five-factor scores (A.L. Capital Advisory, 1–5 scale): Value 2.0/5 (below average) — measures the trailing P/E multiple versus the sector median (not the DCF or blended fair-value range, which are separate metrics on this page); Quality 4.0/5 (above average) — captures profitability metrics including return on equity (ROE: 43.9%) and net margin (15.1%) — sustained above-peer ROE and margins are the model's proxy for economic moat and pricing power; Momentum 3.0/5 (neutral) — reflects recent price trajectory and earnings surprise consistency; Volatility 2.0/5 (below average) — inverse measure derived from beta, where lower historical volatility earns a higher score; Size 4.0/5 (above average) — market capitalisation rank (mega-cap $1T+ scores 5/5). Composite: 3.0/5. Factor scores above 4.0 signal a tailwind in that dimension; below 2.0 signals a material headwind. Analysis by Anton Ladnyi, CFA (ex-Goldman Sachs, ex-J.P. Morgan) · A.L. Capital Advisory.

What is VRT's tail risk and CVaR?

The 95th-percentile Conditional Value at Risk (CVaR) for VRT on a one-month horizon is -23.3%. CVaR represents the expected average loss in the worst 5% of monthly outcomes — a more conservative tail risk measure than standard VaR, which only marks the loss threshold. Beta of 2.08 indicates above-market systematic sensitivity with amplified drawdown exposure — beta measures historical sensitivity to market moves, not total volatility. For reference, a diversified S&P 500 ETF carries a one-month CVaR of roughly -8% to -12% in normal market conditions; individual equity CVaR is higher due to idiosyncratic risk. At the portfolio level, what matters is the marginal CVaR contribution of each holding — not its standalone figure. The A.L. Capital Advisory Portfolio Health Check quantifies each position's marginal tail-risk contribution across your entire holdings. Analysis by Anton Ladnyi, CFA (ex-Goldman Sachs, ex-J.P. Morgan) · A.L. Capital Advisory. Full methodology: CVaR & Tail-Risk Methodology →

What would trigger a rating upgrade or downgrade for VRT?

Upgrade trigger: A price pullback that opens the margin of safety beyond +15% (approximately $164 based on the DCF bear case). Downgrade trigger: An earnings miss at current valuations (58.2x trailing P/E) where there is limited earnings cushion to absorb negative surprises; or a sustained reversal in the Quality and Momentum factor scores for two or more consecutive quarters. These triggers are reassessed each time the underlying fundamentals, price, or earnings data refresh — the current Hold rating is not held on a fixed review calendar. Analysis by Anton Ladnyi, CFA (ex-Goldman Sachs, ex-J.P. Morgan) · A.L. Capital Advisory. Full methodology: Rating Methodology (this page) →

Does VRT consistently beat earnings estimates?

VRT has beaten consensus EPS estimates in 4 of the 4 most recently reported quarters (100%) — indicating consistent delivery across the latest 4 reported quarters. The most recent reported quarter beat consensus by 6.4%. Sustained above-consensus delivery supports both the Momentum and Quality factor scores and provides a tailwind to the current rating. Across the 4 most recently reported quarters with valid consensus data, a beat rate above 70% signals consistent execution in this model, while a rate below 50% typically corresponds to a Momentum factor score of 3.0/5 or below. Earnings surprise magnitude and direction are incorporated into the Momentum and Quality dimensions of the five-factor scoring model. Analysis by Anton Ladnyi, CFA (ex-Goldman Sachs, ex-J.P. Morgan) · A.L. Capital Advisory. Full methodology: Earnings History (this page) →

How does VRT contribute to portfolio risk and diversification?

VRT carries a beta of 2.08 (high-volatility / growth-sensitive relative to the broad equity market). A beta above 1.0 means the position amplifies market moves in both directions at a typical portfolio weight. Strongest peer co-movement: NVDA (0.51), ANET (0.49), CEG (0.41). Holding VRT alongside these names in the same portfolio increases concentration risk. True portfolio risk is a function of the full covariance structure — a single stock's beta does not reveal its marginal contribution to portfolio tail loss. The A.L. Capital Advisory Portfolio Health Check quantifies concentration risk (Herfindahl-Hirschman Index), pairwise correlations, and marginal CVaR contribution across all your holdings. If a single position such as this one makes up an outsized share of your net worth — employer stock, RSUs, or concentrated equity compensation — a Strategic Session builds the sequencing plan and the written allocation that follows from it. Analysis by Anton Ladnyi, CFA (ex-Goldman Sachs, ex-J.P. Morgan) · A.L. Capital Advisory. Full methodology: Ledoit-Wolf Covariance Framework →

What quantitative methodology does A.L. Capital Advisory use to analyse VRT?

A.L. Capital Advisory analyses Vertiv Holdings Co (VRT) using a four-part quantitative research framework grounded in CFA Institute standards (not all four parts feed the composite rating formula directly — see below). (1) DCF Valuation: a two-stage earnings-based DCF that projects EPS (not free cash flow) under bear and bull assumptions, discounts at the CAPM cost of equity (the applicable rate for an equity-level metric like EPS, not a debt-weighted WACC) to produce an intrinsic value range with margin-of-safety calculation. (2) Five-Factor Scoring: each equity is scored 1–5 on Value, Quality, Momentum, Volatility, and Size. (3) CVaR Tail Risk: 95th-percentile Conditional Value at Risk from historical simulation of daily returns on a one-month horizon. (4) Earnings Surprise Analysis: quarterly beat rate and magnitude, shown for context alongside the factor scores. The current Hold composite rating for VRT is calculated separately from this broader framework: it consists of a Hold quantitative grade, any automatic fundamental penalty, and a disclosed qualitative analyst-conviction overlay — see this page's Rating Methodology section for the exact formula. Five-factor scoring, CVaR and earnings surprise analysis below are supporting research diagnostics shown separately on this page; they are not direct numerical inputs into this specific composite-rating calculation. Analysis by Anton Ladnyi, CFA (ex-Goldman Sachs, ex-J.P. Morgan) · A.L. Capital Advisory. Full methodology: DCF Valuation Framework →  ·  CVaR & Tail-Risk Methodology →

Stress-Test This View Live

Run VRT in Asset Lens

Live DCF valuation, Monte Carlo simulation, options flow intelligence, and full factor decomposition — updated in real time. Free, no account required.

Launch Live Analysis →
Anton Ladnyi — Founder & Portfolio Architect, A.L. Capital Advisory, ex-Goldman Sachs, CFA
Anton Ladnyi, CFA
Founder & Portfolio Architect — A.L. Capital Advisory
Ex-Goldman Sachs Equity Research · Ex-J.P. Morgan Wealth Management · CFA Charterholder
Data & Sources
VRT data sources and as-of dates
MetricSourceObservation basis
[1] Company financials & management guidanceSEC EDGAR filings (all forms — 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K earnings releases) →Most recent reported quarter: 2026-06-30
[2] Market priceYahoo Finance quote →2026-09-12T10:48:50+00:00 (UTC) · Market closed (weekend)
[3] Consensus EPS & analyst price targetsYahoo Finance analyst estimates →Retrieved 2026-09-12T10:48:50+00:00 (UTC); see per-quarter analyst counts in Earnings Forecast; individual target ages/dates are not disclosed by the data provider
[4] Insider transactionsYahoo Finance insider transactions →Disclosed transaction dates shown inline where cited (SEC Form 4 basis)
[5] Short interestYahoo Finance key statistics →Most recent exchange settlement date on file with the data provider (exact settlement date not exposed by the provider's API; retrieved 2026-09-12T10:48:50+00:00 UTC)
[6] DCF valuation, five-factor model & composite ratingA.L. Capital Advisory proprietary model →Calculated 2026-09-12T10:48:50+00:00 (UTC); see Rating Methodology above for the exact formula
Legal Disclaimer & Important Notices

This analysis is produced using a systematic quantitative framework applied to market data and does not constitute investment advice. Prose commentary is AI-assisted and generated from structured quantitative inputs. All data and metrics are as of 2026-09-12 and are point-in-time estimates subject to revision without notice. CVaR figures are based on historical simulation and do not guarantee future outcomes. DCF ranges and upgrade/downgrade triggers are forward-looking statements based on current assumptions and may not materialise. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This analysis does not account for individual circumstances, tax position, or investment objectives — consult a qualified financial advisor before making investment decisions. This content is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute regulated investment advice under MiFID II or FCA guidelines. This content is not intended for US persons or residents of jurisdictions where its distribution would be contrary to local law or regulation. This service is not directed at residents of Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, or Poland. The author may hold long or short positions in securities mentioned in this analysis. Nothing on this page represents a solicitation to buy or sell any security. A.L. Capital Advisory is an independent private advisory practice and is not affiliated with Vertiv Holdings Co.

CFA Portfolio Advisory — VRT Discuss this analysis, position sizing, or your full portfolio mandate with Anton Ladnyi, CFA.