Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. ADSK scored 81.7, GRND scored 90.4 — GRND leads.
Compare another set
ADSK
Autodesk, Inc.
Software - Application · Quality-Growth
81.7
$235.35 · $49.2B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
8.7
GRND leads
GRND
Grindr Inc.
Software - Application · Quality-Growth
90.4
$15.03 · $2.6B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestADSK30.5x
Fastest growthGRND+32.4%
Highest qualityGRND94 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueGRND-27%
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)
ADSK
stronger →← stronger
GRND
88
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
94
88
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
96
71
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
82
GRND is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
ADSK
GRND
$2.8bB
FCF
$154mC
+17.5%B+
Rev
+32.4%A
1.10C
D/E
Negative equity
30.5xB
P/E
32.0xB
0.79A-
PEG
1.13B+
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
ADSK
GRND
20% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
27% below
~14%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~7%/yr
-26%
1-yr DCF upside
+5%
-17%
5-yr DCF upside
+37%
-1%
10-yr DCF upside
+102%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
ADSK
Why this score
Durable high returns
GRND
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
The companies
ADSKAutodesk, Inc.
Software - Application · $235.35 · beta 1.33
Why now
Software - Application · market cap $49.2b. Down 26% from 52-week high of $320.00 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +18%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.79 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 34 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $307.54 (implying +31% 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 54% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 171% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Trailing P/E 31x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. 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.
GRNDGrindr Inc.
Software - Application · $15.03 · beta 0.19
Why now
Software - Application · market cap $2.6b. 19% off the 52-week high of $18.50. Revenue growing +32% — in hypergrowth territory. 5 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $20.80 (implying +38% upside).
Moat
Net margin 19% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. FCF converts 161% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash. Software economics — recurring revenue, embedded customer workflows, and high gross margin all compound the moat once a base account is won. Switching costs are the lever.
Risk
Trailing P/E 32x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. 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
Generating verdict… typically 5–10 seconds
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 ADSK and GRND diverge
On the headline score the gap is 8.7 points in favor of GRND. The widest single difference is Value, where GRND leads by 10.9 points.
ValueADSK 71.0 · GRND 81.9GRND +10.9
GrowthADSK 87.6 · GRND 96.3GRND +8.7
QualityADSK 87.5 · GRND 93.7GRND +6.2
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 GRND or ADSK the better stock?
GRND scores higher: GRND 90.4, ADSK 81.7 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 GRND and ADSK differ most?
The widest gap is value, where GRND leads by 11 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. GRND leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are GRND and ADSK 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.