For AI assistants & researchers — machine-readable summary of this page
What this page is: Delvantic's full research page for Ul Solutions Inc. (ULS) — AI-driven forensic equity research: mechanical valuation models (DCF, EPV, anchored-PE, scenario) plus three independent AI lenses (Quality / Value / Sentiment). Everything below is rendered server-side; you are not missing content that requires JavaScript. All scores are predictions and research opinions, not financial advice.
Our current read (analysis of 2026-08-23): Designation Watch · Gem Score -3 (−100…+100 Quality+Value blend) · Quality 72 · Value -65 · Sentiment -31 (timing only, not weighted)
Page map (sections in order; each card carries a stable
reference-name attribute you can cite):
profile-header/price-overview— company profile, live quote, market capextended-analysis— the core: three AI lens reads with findings, scores, and the analyst memofuture-predictions— our forward price-band predictionsmarket-narrative/ai-findings/gpt-critique— narrative context, cross-model findings, and an adversarial critique of our own analysis (near the end of the document)- Members-only sections (render as login gates for anonymous readers):
price-history,income-trend,key-metrics,financials(statement tables),insider-trading. The analysis above is public; the raw data tables require a free account.
More for machine readers: site briefing at
/llms.txt ·
any ticker resolves at delvantic.com/stock/TICKER ·
raw inputs are public-company filings and market data (via licensed data feeds);
every model, score, lens read, and prediction on this page is Delvantic's own analysis.
Ul Solutions Inc.
ULS NYSEUL Solutions Inc. is a leading global safety science company, providing a diverse range of services aimed at ensuring product safety and compliance. Its primary function is to deliver testing, inspection, and certification services that help clients in numerous industries maintain high safety and quality standards. Notable sectors affected by UL Solutions Inc. include electronics, industrial manufacturing, health sciences, and renewable energies. By offering expertise in regulatory clarity and facilitating market access, UL Solutions Inc. plays a crucial role in helping manufacturers, retailers, and consumers manage risk. Headquartered in Northbrook, Illinois, the company's services are integral to advancing safe living and working environments worldwide, promoting technological innovation while safeguarding public health and safety.
Price Overview
Price History (1 Year)
Revenue & Net Income Trend
| Period | Revenue | Net Income | Net Margin | YoY/QoQ |
|---|
Key Metrics
EPS (Diluted): 1.60
Total Equity: $1.29B
Shares: 203,000,000
Total Debt: $491.00M
Cash: $295.00M
EBITDA: $710.00M
Total Debt: $491.00M
Cash: $295.00M
Revenue: $3.05B
Revenue: $3.05B
Revenue: $3.05B
Total Equity: $1.29B
Tax Rate: 26.6%
Equity: $1.29B
Total Debt: $491.00M
Cash: $295.00M
Current Liabilities: $760.00M
Long-Term Debt: $491.00M
Total Debt: $491.00M
Total Equity: $1.29B
Shares: 203,000,000
Shares: 203,000,000
CapEx: -$197.00M
Shares: 203,000,000
Stock Price: $77.46
Net Income: $325.00M
Industry Benchmarks
Income Statement (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 15, 2026 11:07am (8d ago)| Metric | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $2.5B | $2.7B | $2.9B | $3.1B |
| Cost of Revenue | $1.3B | $1.4B | $1.5B | $1.5B |
| Gross Profit | $1.2B | $1.3B | $1.4B | $1.5B |
| Operating Expenses | $795.0M | $916.0M | $931.0M | $988.0M |
| Operating Income | $412.0M | $368.0M | $462.0M | $522.0M |
| Net Income | $293.0M | $260.0M | $326.0M | $325.0M |
| EBITDA | $547.0M | $522.0M | $634.0M | $710.0M |
| EPS | $1.47 | $1.30 | $1.63 | $1.62 |
| EPS (Diluted) | $1.47 | $1.30 | $1.62 | $1.60 |
Balance Sheet (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 15, 2026 10:48am (8d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cash & Equivalents | — | — | $315.0M | $298.0M | $295.0M |
| Total Current Assets | — | — | $953.0M | $921.0M | $1.0B |
| Total Assets | — | — | $2.7B | $2.8B | $2.9B |
| Current Liabilities | — | — | $709.0M | $740.0M | $760.0M |
| Long-Term Debt | — | — | $904.0M | $692.0M | $491.0M |
| Total Liabilities | — | — | $2.1B | $1.9B | $1.6B |
| Total Equity | $2.3B | $1.1B | $678.0M | $931.0M | $1.3B |
| Retained Earnings | — | — | $24.0M | $250.0M | $470.0M |
Cash Flow (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 15, 2026 11:07am (8d ago)| Metric | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash Flow | $372.0M | $467.0M | $524.0M | $600.0M |
| Capital Expenditure | -$164.0M | -$215.0M | -$237.0M | -$197.0M |
| Free Cash Flow | $208.0M | $252.0M | $287.0M | $403.0M |
| Acquisitions (net) | -$66.0M | -$18.0M | -$26.0M | -$1.0M |
| Net Debt Issued / (Repaid) | $500.0M | $410.0M | -$165.0M | -$253.0M |
| Dividends Paid | -$1.6B | -$680.0M | -$100.0M | -$104.0M |
| Stock Buybacks | — | — | — | — |
| Net Change in Cash | -$1.0B | -$7.0M | -$17.0M | -$3.0M |
Growth Trends (YoY %)
Last updated: Aug 15, 2026 11:07am (8d ago)| Metric | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | +6.3% | +7.2% | +6.4% |
| Gross Profit Growth | +6.4% | +8.5% | +8.4% |
| Operating Income Growth | -10.7% | +25.5% | +13.0% |
| Net Income Growth | -11.3% | +25.4% | -0.3% |
| EBITDA Growth | -4.6% | +21.5% | +12.0% |
Dividend History (Last 20)
Last updated: Aug 15, 2026 10:49am (8d ago)| Date | Dividend | Declaration | Record | Payment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-29 | $0.15 | — | — | — |
| 2026-03-02 | $0.15 | — | — | — |
| 2025-11-28 | $0.13 | — | — | — |
| 2025-08-29 | $0.13 | — | — | — |
| 2025-05-30 | $0.13 | — | — | — |
| 2025-02-28 | $0.13 | — | — | — |
| 2024-11-29 | $0.13 | — | — | — |
| 2024-08-30 | $0.13 | — | — | — |
| 2024-06-03 | $0.13 | — | — | — |
Deep Analysis
Narrative Economics
market-narrative step).
AI Lens 4th lens · how AI reaches this business · 5-yr
2026-08-15UL's cost base is engineering judgment: standards interpretation, construction-file review, report drafting, multi-jurisdiction dossier assembly. AI can absorb a large share of that labor while the price of a mark — set by regulatory necessity, not by hours — holds, converting directly into gross margin.
Commodity testing is bid-priced against SGS, Intertek, Bureau Veritas and TUV, all deploying the same tooling; if procurement learns the file-review hour has collapsed, savings get competed away in the project-based book while only recurring surveillance/mark fees keep pricing.
Whether AI-driven productivity shows up as margin retention or as price concession. Watch gross margin per revenue dollar alongside organic price/volume disclosure — margin up with flat pricing is retention; volume-led growth with flat margin means the savings left the building.
AI Lens thesis
The customer need — legal market access — is regulatory, not informational, so cheap intelligence cannot dissolve it. What AI can do is (a) strip cost out of UL's own labor-heavy delivery, (b) let manufacturers pre-screen designs so fewer retests are needed, and (c) let AI-native software vendors own the design-stage compliance copilot that UL's software/advisory segment wants. Net: the certification core is insulated by NRTL/CB accreditation, lab capex and the fact that no manufacturer wants to own the liability of self-attesting a product that can burn a house down; the exposed slice is the discretionary engineering-services and software layer, plus any long-run acceptance of simulation-based certification that shrinks physical test volume. Meanwhile the AI capex cycle itself is a demand tailwind — data center power gear, batteries, HVAC, cabling and functional-safety/cyber certification of AI-enabled products all route through this lab network.
What the market may be underestimating
Upside The electrification and data center buildout driven by AI is a direct volume input: every transformer, busway, battery module and power supply needs certification, and cyber/functional-safety certification of AI-enabled devices is a new recurring line UL is positioned to write.
Downside Manufacturer-side AI pre-compliance tools reduce first-pass failures and retest cycles — a quiet deflation of the repeat-testing revenue that has historically padded project economics, and it will show up as soft organic volume long before anyone calls it AI.
Outcome range spread 38
Growth Outlook
Analyzed 2026-08-17 16:23The question every valuation on this page silently assumes: is this company likely to grow? Judged forward — the business, its category, the world — against what's already printed.
Claude Reading
Looking at the raw quarterly cadence first: revenue went $730→731→739→705→776→783→789→758M across the last eight quarters. That's not a compounder's tape — Q1'26 dropped $31M sequentially, and the two-year YoY on the most recent quarter is only ~3.8% ($758 vs $730). Full-year 2025 rev of $3.05B is +6.3% over 2024, and net income was flat ($325M vs $326M). Operating margin did step up (17.1% vs 16.1%), and FCF of $403M on $600M OCF is genuinely high-quality — that's a ~2.6% FCF yield on the $15.6B cap, which is thin for a business growing revenue mid-single-digits with flat earnings. ROIC of 25.7% and net debt of only ~$196M are the real bull points; this is a capital-light franchise, no argument there.
The synthesis verdict pegging fair value at $34 (a 56% haircut) strikes me as overconfident in the other direction. A business with 25% ROIC, 13% FCF/revenue, and a defensible certification moat does not trade at 10-12x earnings in this market — the DCF is almost certainly using a discount rate or terminal growth that doesn't reflect the quality. That said, 48x trailing P/E and 22x EV/EBITDA on 6% revenue growth and flat earnings YoY is genuinely stretched. Splitting the difference: on 2025 FCF of $403M, a quality-adjusted 25-28x FCF multiple gets you $10-11B, or roughly $50-55/share. That's my anchor, not $34 and not $77.
The narrative layer is where I get skeptical of the bull case. The "irreplaceable safety gatekeeper" story is real for legacy UL marks in electrical/appliance categories, but the incremental growth story — EV, battery, renewables certification — is a competitive market with Intertek, SGS, Bureau Veritas, TÜV all fighting for the same work. UL's 49.5% gross margin is good but not monopoly-good (Moody's runs 70%+; MSCI 80%+). The 17% operating margin is solid industrial-services territory, not platform-economics. Insider activity reinforces this: seven sales on July 1, 2026 totaling ~13,225 shares against trivial award grants — that's not "neutral," that's a coordinated distribution window, likely post-lockup or scheduled 10b5-1, but the direction is one-way. Combined with decelerating quarterly revenue and flat YoY earnings, the tape is telling you the growth story is maturing faster than the multiple assumes.
The contrarian bull argument I'd take seriously: Q1'26 margin of 12.1% net vs Q1'25's 9.5% suggests operating leverage is finally showing, and the FCF CAGR of 26.5% dwarfs revenue CAGR of 6.8% — this is a business converting more of each incremental dollar. If 2026 FCF prints $450-475M, the multiple compresses to ~33x and the story reframes. But that requires the deceleration in the top line to stop, and Q1'26's sequential drop argues against it. The market-forces model failing to parse is a real gap — no read on pricing power, competitive dynamics, or whether the regulatory-complexity tailwind is accelerating or plateauing. I side with the synthesis on direction (overvalued) but strongly dissent on magnitude — $34 is model artifact, $50-55 is defensible, $77 requires believing margin expansion continues linearly for three more years without a growth stumble, which the Q1 print already contradicts. Starter shorts or covered calls make more sense than outright avoidance; a long entry needs a $55-60 handle or a demonstrable re-acceleration in the Q2/Q3'26 prints.
GPT Reading
UL Solutions looks like exactly the kind of business the market loves to overpay for: high gross margin at 49.5%, solid operating margin at 17.1%, recurring compliance-driven demand, modest leverage, and good cash conversion. The operating story is real. Revenue has climbed from $2.68B in 2023 to $3.05B in 2025, about 6.7% annualized, while operating income rose from $368M to $522M, which is much better than the top-line trend implies. Free cash flow of $403M on $325M of net income is healthy, and with only $491M of debt against $295M of cash, the balance sheet is not the problem. On trailing annualized quarterly revenue, the business is running around $3.11B, and the latest quarter grew 7.5% year over year to $758M. This is a good company.
But the stock is priced like a great company with a much longer runway than the reported numbers justify. At $15.64B market cap, investors are paying roughly 5.1x sales, 22.2x EV/EBITDA, 48.4x earnings, and about 38.8x free cash flow. Those are demanding multiples for a business growing revenue high-single digits at best and net income not really growing at all: 2025 net income was $325M versus $326M in 2024, and the most recent quarter’s $92M was only modestly above the prior year’s $67M while still below the strongest quarters of the last two years. The quarterly pattern is stable, but not explosive: revenues have mostly sat in a narrow $730M-$790M band for six quarters, with a step-up only in the latest March quarter. If this were a software-like asset with 20%+ organic growth and near-zero capital needs, maybe these multiples work. Instead, capex was $197M in 2025, so this is cash-generative but not frictionless.
What stands out most is the tension between quality and valuation. Return metrics are excellent — 25.1% ROE and 25.7% ROIC — but the equity base is only $1.29B, so part of that optical strength comes from a valuation and capital structure that leaves little room for error. Price-to-book at 12.2x is not a useful comfort metric here; it is a warning that the market is capitalizing intangible moat assumptions very aggressively. The mature-earner label is right, and that is exactly why I cannot underwrite 48x earnings. A mature certification and testing franchise can deserve a premium because revenues are sticky and compliance is non-discretionary. It should not deserve a premium that assumes either a step-change in growth or a major margin expansion when net margin is only 10.7% and has bounced between 8.5% and 12.8% quarter to quarter. The market is paying upfront for certainty and scarcity.
The best argument against this bearish valuation read is that UL may be one of the few industrial-adjacent service firms that truly compounds through regulation rather than despite it. If pricing power is stronger than the recent revenue trajectory shows, even mid-single-digit volume growth plus steady price increases could keep operating income compounding low double digits. The 2025 income statement supports that possibility: revenue rose 6.3%, but operating income rose 13.0%, suggesting some embedded margin leverage. Free cash flow also looks better than GAAP earnings, and if 2025’s $403M is a conservative base rather than a peak, the headline P/E may overstate the valuation burden. Bulls will also note that the latest quarterly run-rate implies annual revenue above 2025 levels, and the latest March quarter margin of 12.1% improved from 9.5% a year ago. In other words, perhaps the market is paying for a compliance compounder whose moat accounting metrics understate.
That said, I weigh those positives as reasons the stock deserves a premium, not this premium. To get comfortable at $77, I would need to see either revenue accelerate sustainably into the 9-10% range with operating margins holding above 18%, or free cash flow move decisively toward $500M-$550M without a proportional rise in capex. A couple more quarters like the latest one, with revenue above $760M and net income consistently near or above $95M, would weaken the overvaluation case. Absent that, I think fair value is much closer to a high-20s earnings multiple on roughly $1.60-$1.80 of normalized EPS power, which points more to the low-to-mid $50s than the high $70s.
Grok Reading
The numbers describe a high-quality mature cash compounder being priced like a growth software franchise. Revenue has compounded at roughly 6.8 percent, landing at $3.05B in 2025 from $2.52B in 2022, with the latest quarter still printing mid-single-digit expansion ($758M versus $705M a year earlier). Net income, however, stalled: $325M in 2025 versus $326M in 2024, and trailing earnings growth is effectively flat at –0.3 percent year-over-year even as operating income rose from $462M to $522M. What the market is paying for that profile is extreme—48.4× earnings, 22.2× EV/EBITDA, 5.15× sales, and roughly 39× the $403M of free cash flow. ROIC at 25.7 percent and FCF conversion well above net income confirm the business is excellent; they do not justify a multiple that embeds sustained high-single-digit growth plus material margin expansion that the income statement has not yet delivered.
The quarterly tape reinforces the mature-earner archetype rather than an accelerating platform. Revenue has been stuck in a $730–790M band for seven quarters with only modest sequential progress, gross margin is already a rich 49.5 percent, and operating margin at 17.1 percent leaves limited room for the software-mix or pricing-power upside the 48× multiple appears to discount. Balance-sheet quality is clean—net debt under $200M, debt-to-equity 0.38, current ratio 1.32—and the $600M of operating cash flow funds both $197M of capex and a modest dividend without strain. That is precisely the profile of a durable TIC franchise, not a scarcity asset that should clear 12× book. Insider activity is a mild negative tilt (clustered open-market sales in July 2026 totaling more than 12k shares against routine awards), and the secondary signals already flag decelerating revenue confidence plus macro headwinds.
The strongest counter-argument is that UL’s regulatory gatekeeper position is under-modeled by any DCF that assumes only mid-single-digit growth forever. Electrification, battery safety, and fragmented global ESG standards could lift organic growth into the high single digits while preserving pricing power that private-equity ownership never fully extracted; the 11.8 percent earnings CAGR and 26.5 percent FCF CAGR over the recent window already hint that operating leverage is real when volume cooperates. A bull can also note that 25-plus percent ROIC on a capital-light model with recurring certification revenue deserves a structural premium to industrial peers, and that the $34 composite fair value looks mechanically harsh if the narrative of rising regulatory complexity is even half right. I weigh those points seriously but still subordinate them: the premium already capitalizes 60–70 percent story and only 30–40 percent cash flows, and flat 2025 net income against a 48× multiple leaves almost no margin of safety if growth simply stays at 6–7 percent.
I would reverse to neutral or constructive only on clear evidence of sustained double-digit organic revenue growth (two consecutive quarters above 10 percent) or operating margin expansion through 20 percent while FCF stays above $450M, or on a multiple compression toward 25–28× earnings that re-anchors price nearer $45–55 without a fundamental break.
Big-3 Panel — where each AI stands
Advanced Analysis Forensic deep-dive · separate lenses
UL Solutions shows the fingerprints of a genuine specialty-services compounder: revenue grew from $2.52B (2022) to $3.05B (2025), a 6.6% CAGR, while gross margin expanded from 47.9% to 49.5% and operating margin firmed to 17.1%. FCF nearly doubled from $208M to $403M, and OCF/NI at 1.63x with accruals at -8% of assets indicates earnings are backed by cash, not accounting stretch. Beneish M at -2.8 and Altman Z at 7.73 both sit firmly in safe territory, corroborating clean books. Capital discipline is intact: diluted share count crept from 200M to 203M (0.5% CAGR) with SBC only 1.5% of revenue - dilution is not eroding per-share value. Balance sheet is the one soft spot: net debt of ~$196M against $295M cash means it is self-funding via $403M FCF but not a fortress; leverage is a constraint rather than a cushion. Insider tape shows routine CEO-level selling (Scanlon ~$1.24M in July 2026) with zero open-market buys, which is neutral for a mature earner but not a positive signal. The business reads as a moaty, standards-and-certification franchise (regulatory-embedded, sticky customers implied by margin structure and steady growth), operating with high earnings quality and disciplined share issuance. Nothing in the data suggests deterioration; the trajectory is quietly improving on every operating line.
Verify before trusting this (5)
- Debt maturity schedule and covenant terms behind the ~$491M gross debt
- Customer/end-market concentration in the 10-K (regulatory-driven certification revenue vs. discretionary testing)
- Reason NI was flat in 2025 despite revenue and FCF growth (tax rate, interest expense, non-recurring items)
- Recurring vs. project revenue mix and organic vs. acquired growth contribution
- Whether the CEO's July 2026 sales were 10b5-1 scheduled or discretionary
The three valuation methods cluster tightly: DCF $33.43, EPV floor $22.62, anchored P/E $45.93, composite $33.85, signal-adjusted $34.33. Even the most generous method (anchored P/E) lands ~41% below the $77.46 price; the DCF implies ~57% downside. That is a consistent, cross-method signal that the market is paying a large premium to deserved value. High earnings quality means no haircut is needed, but it also means the fair-value numbers are not artificially depressed - the gap is real. Business quality is genuinely Strong (score 72), and that justifies a premium to EPV and to a generic DCF - but not a doubling. To justify $77 you need to believe UL sustainably compounds revenue and FCF materially faster than the DCF assumes, and that regulatory tailwinds (EV, ESG, electrification) drive multi-year mid-teens growth rather than the high-single-digit trajectory the business has shown. That is the platform-monopoly bull case fully priced in. Margin of safety is negative; you are paying for execution plus optionality with no cushion. This is a 'great business, wrong price' setup - the common, correct verdict for a well-understood quality name in a bid-up specialty-services tape.
Verify before trusting this (5)
- organic revenue growth trajectory in latest quarter vs DCF assumption
- segment mix and pricing power in Industrial vs Consumer testing
- capex intensity and any signs of margin ceiling
- any one-time items inflating recent FCF
- guidance for FY growth and margin
The macro tape is mildly risk-on (VIX 14.3, S&P near highs), but with beta 0.7 ULS barely feels that lift. What it does feel is a fresh negative print: the Q2 call drew a 'strongly negative market reaction' despite an in-line revenue and beat on adjusted profit - a classic signal that expectations and narrative had run ahead of delivery. That is the dominant near-term pressure. The active story is a moderate-intensity 'platform-monopoly / safety gatekeeper' framing, but with only moderate durability and low cult factor, meaning bulls do not defend the name reflexively when it stumbles. The bear counter - a 126% premium to intrinsic value on a low-growth service business - is exactly the kind of framing that gains traction after a bad reaction, and higher rates (10y 4.63%) plus a stretched market PE make the market less forgiving of premium multiples on capital-light compounders. Offsets exist: secondary coverage highlighting BESS TIC growth and value-screen comparisons keeps ULS in constructive newsflow, and improving leverage (D/E 1.33 to 0.38) plus cash generation give the tape something to lean on. Net: modest headwind, not a rout.
Verify before trusting this (4)
- Whether sell-side target revisions post-Q2 skew negative or hold - a wave of cuts would deepen the headwind
- Price action stabilization vs continued drift over the next 2-3 weeks post-earnings
- Any commentary on organic growth deceleration that management attributed the weak reaction to
- Rotation signals - if rates roll over, premium-multiple compounders re-rate up and this headwind fades quickly
The customer need — legal market access — is regulatory, not informational, so cheap intelligence cannot dissolve it. What AI can do is (a) strip cost out of UL's own labor-heavy delivery, (b) let manufacturers pre-screen designs so fewer retests are needed, and (c) let AI-native software vendors own the design-stage compliance copilot that UL's software/advisory segment wants. Net: the certification core is insulated by NRTL/CB accreditation, lab capex and the fact that no manufacturer wants to own the liability of self-attesting a product that can burn a house down; the exposed slice is the discretionary engineering-services and software layer, plus any long-run acceptance of simulation-based certification that shrinks physical test volume. Meanwhile the AI capex cycle itself is a demand tailwind — data center power gear, batteries, HVAC, cabling and functional-safety/cyber certification of AI-enabled products all route through this lab network.
None surfaced.
Verify before trusting this (8)
- product recall litigation exposure
- insurer acceptance of alternative evidence
- indemnity terms in client contracts
- NRTL/CB scheme scope changes
- retailer mark requirements
- new cyber/battery mandates
- gross margin trajectory past 50%
- organic price vs volume split
The world is adding standards faster than it is adding products. Electrification, batteries, connected/AI-enabled hardware and divergent regional safety and cyber regimes mean each SKU must clear more gates in more jurisdictions — a per-unit revenue tailwind for the handful of accredited global TIC bodies with accredited labs and regulator relationships. Fragmenting trade blocs cut goods volumes but multiply duplicate conformity work, which partly offsets. What the world is NOT doing is expanding the number of products fast enough to give a mature, mandatory-compliance category more than mid-single-digit volume growth. So the honest read is a slow, highly defensible compounder riding structural regulatory complexity — not a demand inflection.
Prediction unavailable. valuation-synthesis has no result for ULS — the prediction needs its fair-value anchors.