Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. ADBE scored 85.4, NICE scored 73.2 — ADBE leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. ADBE's fundamentals are as of August 2026, but NICE's are as of December 2025 — a 8-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
ADBE
Adobe Inc.
Software - Application · Quality-Growth
85.4
$242.27 · $94.3B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
12.2
ADBE leads
NICE
NICE Ltd.
Software - Application · Quality-Growth
73.2
$117.49 · $6.9B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestADBE13.5x
Fastest growthADBE+10.5%
Strongest balance sheetNICE0.02
Highest qualityADBE92 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueNICE-39%
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)
ADBE
stronger →← stronger
NICE
92
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
83
80
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
58
85
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
81
ADBE is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
ADBE
NICE
$10.6bA-
FCF
$698mC+
+10.5%B
Rev
+7.7%B
0.58C+
D/E
0.02A-
13.5xA-
P/E
17.1xA-
0.58A-
PEG
0.78A-
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
ADBE
NICE
35% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
39% below
~-2%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-6%/yr
+37%
1-yr DCF upside
+56%
+53%
5-yr DCF upside
+64%
+80%
10-yr DCF upside
+76%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
ADBE
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
NICE
Why this score
Buying back stock
The companies
ADBEAdobe Inc.
Software - Application · $242.27 · beta 1.42
Why now
Software - Application · market cap $94.3b. Down 33% from 52-week high of $363.70 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +11%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.58 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 32 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $275.06 (implying +14% upside).
Moat
Net margin 28% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 62% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 145% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Down 33% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 1.42 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. Software — competitive moat is durable until it isn't; watch net revenue retention, gross margin trends, and any new market entrant with a fundamentally lower price point.
NICENICE Ltd.
Software - Application · $117.49 · beta 0.04
Why now
Software - Application · market cap $6.9b. 15% off the 52-week high of $138.58. PEG 0.78 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 13 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $132.77 (implying +13% upside).
Moat
Net margin 21% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 16% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 114% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Software — competitive moat is durable until it isn't; watch net revenue retention, gross margin trends, and any new market entrant with a fundamentally lower price point.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
ADBE leads NICE by 5.9 points (89.8 to 83.9), its sharpest advantage coming in FCF (grade A-). A contrarian could still prefer NICE, which trades about 54% below our DCF fair value — a margin of safety the score doesn't reward.
Our AI analyst is busy right now, so this verdict is drawn directly from the pillars, grades and DCF above.
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 ADBE and NICE diverge
On the headline score the gap is 12.2 points in favor of ADBE. The widest single difference is Growth, where ADBE leads by 21.6 points.
GrowthADBE 79.7 · NICE 58.1ADBE +21.6
QualityADBE 92.1 · NICE 83.0ADBE +9.1
ValueADBE 84.8 · NICE 81.5ADBE +3.3
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 ADBE or NICE the better stock?
ADBE scores higher: ADBE 85.4, NICE 73.2 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 ADBE and NICE differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where ADBE leads by 22 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. ADBE leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are ADBE and NICE 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.