Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. APP scored 88.3, RBLX scored 35.2 — APP leads.
Compare another set
APP
AppLovin Corporation
Advertising Agencies · Quality-Growth
88.3
$277.04 · $93.1B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
53.1
APP leads
RBLX
Roblox Corporation
Electronic Gaming & Multimedia · Quality-Growth
35.2
$48.09 · $34.4B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthAPP+70.0%
Highest qualityAPP90 / 100
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
APP
stronger →← stronger
RBLX
90
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
31
96
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
97
79
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
14
APP is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
APP
RBLX
$4.5bB
FCF
$1.6bC+
+70.0%A
Rev
+41.3%A
1.11C+
D/E
—
21.3xB
P/E
—
0.61A-
PEG
8.18D
—
P/S
6.0xC
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
APP
RBLX
45% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
24% above
~26%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~21%/yr
-46%
1-yr DCF upside
-38%
-31%
5-yr DCF upside
-19%
-3%
10-yr DCF upside
+15%
These two disagree on this pair: the Value pillar ranks cheapness against sector peers, while price-vs-fair-value is an absolute read. A name can be the better value in its sector and still the dearer one on cash flows.
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
APP
Why this score
Durable high returns
RBLX
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
The companies
APPAppLovin Corporation
Advertising Agencies · $277.04 · beta 2.56
Why now
Advertising Agencies · market cap $93.1b. Down 62% from 52-week high of $738.01 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +70% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.61 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 31 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $487.66 (implying +76% upside).
Moat
Net margin 65% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. FCF converts 102% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash. $93.1b 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
Down 62% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 2.56 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. P/S 13.6x embeds aggressive forward growth — disappointing top-line guidance would compress the multiple hard.
Electronic Gaming & Multimedia · market cap $34.4b. Down 66% from 52-week high of $141.95 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +41% — in hypergrowth territory. 34 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $48.97 (implying +2% upside).
Moat
Turnaround / out-of-favor name — GAAP-unprofitable for now, so the durability case is forward-looking: it rests on a recovery (margin normalization, a cyclical upturn or restructuring) or an un-monetized asset (IP / network effects / first-mover position) rather than on current reported results.
Risk
Currently unprofitable (margin -17.6%) — path to GAAP profitability is the core thesis risk. Down 66% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 1.47 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return.
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 APP and RBLX diverge
On the headline score the gap is 53.1 points in favor of APP. The widest single difference is Value, where APP leads by 64.8 points.
ValueAPP 79.2 · RBLX 14.4APP +64.8
QualityAPP 90.1 · RBLX 31.3APP +58.8
GrowthAPP 96.4 · RBLX 97.0level
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 APP or RBLX the better stock?
APP scores higher: APP 88.3, RBLX 35.2 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 APP and RBLX differ most?
The widest gap is value, where APP leads by 65 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. APP also leads quality, while growth is effectively level between them.
How are APP and RBLX 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.