Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. BILI scored 51.0, GOOG scored 80.4 — GOOG leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. GOOG's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but BILI's are as of December 2025 — a 6-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
BILI
Bilibili Inc.
Internet Content & Information · Quality-Growth
51
$15.49 · $6.4B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
29.4
GOOG leads
GOOG
Alphabet Inc.
Internet Content & Information · Quality-Growth
80.4
$347.86 · $4.3T
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestGOOG17.5x
Fastest growthGOOG+20.1%
Strongest balance sheetGOOG0.19
Highest qualityGOOG84 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueBILI-73%
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)
BILI
stronger →← stronger
GOOG
44
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
84
87
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
91
63
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
68
GOOG is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
BILI
GOOG
$795mC+
FCF
$53.3bA
+13.1%B+
Rev
+20.1%A-
0.60B
D/E
0.19A-
30.4xC+
P/E
17.5xB
0.32A
PEG
1.21B
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
BILI
GOOG
73% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
344% above
~-17%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~54%/yr
+196%
1-yr DCF upside
-82%
+267%
5-yr DCF upside
-77%
+407%
10-yr DCF upside
-70%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
BILI
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
Foreign reporter (CNY)
GOOG
Why this score
Durable high returns
The companies
BILIBilibili Inc.
Internet Content & Information · $15.49 · beta 0.65
Why now
Internet Content & Information · market cap $6.4b. Down 57% from 52-week high of $36.40 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +13%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.32 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 30 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $26.51 (implying +71% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of cash released from working capital ($333m) — a release that doesn't repeat every year the way earnings can.
Risk
Down 57% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Trailing P/E 30x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. Net margin 3.9% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
GOOGAlphabet Inc.
Internet Content & Information · $347.86 · beta 1.21
Why now
Internet Content & Information · market cap $4.3T. 14% off the 52-week high of $404.47. Revenue growing +20%, comfortably above the S&P median. 14 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $420.36 (implying +21% upside).
Moat
Net margin 55% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 38% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. $4.3T market cap places it among the largest companies in the sector — distribution, R&D, and customer-acquisition costs amortize across a base peers can't replicate.
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.
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 BILI and GOOG diverge
On the headline score the gap is 29.4 points in favor of GOOG. The widest single difference is Quality, where GOOG leads by 40.6 points.
QualityBILI 43.8 · GOOG 84.4GOOG +40.6
ValueBILI 63.4 · GOOG 67.9GOOG +4.5
GrowthBILI 86.7 · GOOG 90.5GOOG +3.8
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 GOOG or BILI the better stock?
GOOG scores higher: GOOG 80.4, BILI 51.0 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 GOOG and BILI differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where GOOG leads by 41 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. GOOG leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are GOOG and BILI 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.