Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. ACN scored 77.6, EXLS scored 80.6 — EXLS leads.
Compare another set
ACN
Accenture plc
Information Technology Services · Quality-Growth
77.6
$209.06 · $127.9B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
3.0
EXLS leads
EXLS
ExlService Holdings, Inc.
Information Technology Services · Quality-Growth
80.6
$36.79 · $5.6B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestACN15.4x
Fastest growthEXLS+13.6%
Strongest balance sheetACN0.40
Highest qualityACN88 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueACN-35%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
Growth against the P/E multiple. Up and to the right is cheaper and faster — the quality-growth idea in one picture. Points beyond the axis are pinned to the edge and marked off-scale rather than allowed to compress everything else.
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
ACN
stronger →← stronger
EXLS
88
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
85
70
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
85
76
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
73
ACN is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
ACN
EXLS
$12.6bA-
FCF
$275mC
+7.4%B
Rev
+13.6%B+
0.40B
D/E
0.57C+
15.4xA-
P/E
23.3xB+
1.98C+
PEG
0.96B+
Winner per row is the stronger grade; where grades tie, the better figure breaks it. A true tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
ACN
EXLS
35% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
4% below
~-4%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~8%/yr
+42%
1-yr DCF upside
-8%
+53%
5-yr DCF upside
+4%
+70%
10-yr DCF upside
+25%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
ACN
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
EXLS
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
The companies
ACNAccenture plc
Information Technology Services · $209.06 · beta 1.10
Why now
Information Technology Services · market cap $127.9b. Down 28% from 52-week high of $291.09 — deep drawdown territory. 24 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $223.65 (implying +7% upside).
Moat
ROE 26% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 150% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash. $127.9b market cap gives the company enough scale to absorb fixed costs that subscale competitors can't, without yet being so large that growth has to come from acquisition.
Risk
Mature compounder — the risk is paying up for quality at a moment when growth is decelerating. Watch for sequential revenue + margin trends; the inflection from "compounder" to "ex-compounder" is hard to spot until the multiple already started compressing.
EXLSExlService Holdings, Inc.
Information Technology Services · $36.79 · beta 0.84
Why now
Information Technology Services · market cap $5.6b. 16% off the 52-week high of $43.88. Revenue growing +14%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.96 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 8 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $44.63 (implying +21% upside).
Moat
ROE 26% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 110% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Value re-rating depends on a catalyst. Without one — analyst day, divestiture, margin recovery, capital return — the stock can stay cheap on these multiples for years.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
The model favors EXLS with an 83 score, primarily due to its superior Growth pillar of 88, reflecting stronger revenue expansion at +13.4%. However, ACN, scoring 78, offers a deeper margin of safety with its price 40% below fair value and an implied growth rate of -7%, suggesting less market optimism is priced in.
Not investment advice. The Bull Rankings publishes a quantitative ranking model and accompanying analysis for general informational purposes only. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security; nothing is personalized to your circumstances, risk tolerance, or tax situation. Investing carries the risk of loss — invest at your own risk and consider consulting a licensed financial professional before acting on anything you read here. See terms and methodology for full disclosures.
Where ACN and EXLS diverge
On the headline score the gap is 3.0 points in favor of EXLS. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
GrowthACN 70.5 · EXLS 85.0EXLS +14.5
ValueACN 75.7 · EXLS 72.6ACN +3.1
QualityACN 87.6 · EXLS 84.7level
Pillars run 0–100. Value is judged against each company's own sector, so a Value score is a statement about a company relative to its own industry rather than to the other name here. A wide Value gap usually means the market already prices the difference in quality or growth — which is the trade-off this comparison comes down to.
Common questions
Is EXLS or ACN the better stock?
EXLS scores higher: EXLS 80.6, ACN 77.6 out of 100 on the Bull Rankings quality-growth score, which blends business quality, growth and valuation into one number. A higher score means a stronger business at a more reasonable price — it is not a price target or a recommendation.
Where do EXLS and ACN differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where EXLS leads by 15 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. Neither name sweeps: they trade the lead across the three pillars, so the comparison is a trade-off rather than one being better on every measure.
How are EXLS and ACN scored?
Each carries the same 0–100 quality-growth score used everywhere on the site, built from three pillars — quality (profitability and returns on capital), growth (revenue and earnings), and value (what you pay for them) — combined as a geometric mean, so a weak pillar cannot be papered over by a strong one.
How current is this comparison?
The whole universe is re-scored every trading day after the US market close, so the scores and fundamentals here reflect the latest published edition.