COMPARE · Data as of August 13, 2026
BVC vs INTU
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. BVC scored 72.0, INTU scored 86.4 — INTU leads.
Compare another set
BVC
BitVentures Limited
72
$15.03 · $2.5B
Score gap
14.4
INTU leads
INTU
Intuit Inc.
86.4
$358.29 · $98.0B
fundamentals as of
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
BVC
stronger →← stronger
INTU
94
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
86
97
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
90
96
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
84
BVC is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
BVC
INTU
—
FCF
$7.8bB+
+43.0%A
Rev
+15.1%B+
—
D/E
0.33B
8.9xA
P/E
21.8xB+
—
PEG
0.87B+
Winner per row is the stronger grade in our model; a tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
BVC
INTU
—
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
36% below
—
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~-1%/yr
—
1-yr DCF upside
+34%
—
5-yr DCF upside
+56%
—
10-yr DCF upside
+94%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
BVC
Why this score
- Short track record
INTU
Why this score
- Raising its dividend
The companies
BVCBitVentures Limited
Why now
Software - Application · market cap $2.5b. Trading near 52-week high of $15.13 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. Revenue growing +43% — in hypergrowth territory.
Moat
ROE 23% sits above Buffett's preferred 15% threshold — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. 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
Trading within 1% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. 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.
INTUIntuit Inc.
Why now
Software - Application · market cap $98.0b. Down 50% from 52-week high of $721.54 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +15%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.87 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 33 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $455.38 (implying +27% upside).
Moat
Net margin 22% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 22% sits above Buffett's preferred 15% threshold — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 169% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Down 50% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. 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 BVC and INTU diverge
On the headline score the gap is 14.4 points in favour of INTU. The widest single difference is Value, where BVC leads by 12.6 points.
- ValueBVC 96.3 · INTU 83.7BVC +12.6
- QualityBVC 94.4 · INTU 85.9BVC +8.5
- GrowthBVC 97.2 · INTU 89.6BVC +7.6
Pillars run 0–100 against sector peers, so a 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.