Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. BILI scored 51.0, RDDT scored 72.0 — RDDT leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. RDDT'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
21.0
RDDT leads
RDDT
Reddit, Inc.
Internet Content & Information · Quality-Growth
72
$159.91 · $30.8B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestBILI30.4x
Fastest growthRDDT+66.6%
Strongest balance sheetRDDT0.01
Highest qualityRDDT79 / 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
RDDT
44
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
79
87
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
99
63
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
61
RDDT is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
BILI
RDDT
$795mC+
FCF
$1.0bC+
+13.1%B+
Rev
+66.6%A
0.60B
D/E
0.01A
30.4xC+
P/E
37.2xC
0.32A
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
BILI
RDDT
73% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
112% above
~-17%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~37%/yr
+196%
1-yr DCF upside
-63%
+267%
5-yr DCF upside
-53%
+407%
10-yr DCF upside
-34%
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)
RDDT
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
Short track record
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.
RDDTReddit, Inc.
Internet Content & Information · $159.91 · beta 2.05
Why now
Internet Content & Information · market cap $30.8b. Down 39% from 52-week high of $263.50 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +67% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.78 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 33 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $213.71 (implying +34% upside).
Moat
Net margin 31% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 27% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 117% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Down 39% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 2.05 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. Trailing P/E 37x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
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 RDDT diverge
On the headline score the gap is 21.0 points in favor of RDDT. The widest single difference is Quality, where RDDT leads by 35.1 points.
QualityBILI 43.8 · RDDT 78.9RDDT +35.1
GrowthBILI 86.7 · RDDT 99.1RDDT +12.4
ValueBILI 63.4 · RDDT 60.8level
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 RDDT or BILI the better stock?
RDDT scores higher: RDDT 72.0, 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 RDDT and BILI differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where RDDT leads by 35 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. RDDT also leads growth, while value is effectively level between them.
How are RDDT 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.