Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CARG scored 82.4, BZ scored 63.0 — CARG leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. CARG's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but BZ'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.
CARG
CarGurus, Inc.
Internet Content & Information · Quality-Growth
82.4
$28.85 · $2.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
19.4
CARG leads
BZ
Kanzhun Limited
Internet Content & Information · Quality-Growth
63
$15.73 · $6.9B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestBZ11.3x
Fastest growthCARG+13.7%
Strongest balance sheetBZ0.01
Highest qualityCARG86 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueBZ-47%
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)
CARG
stronger →← stronger
BZ
86
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
75
82
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
81
79
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
75
CARG is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CARG
BZ
$291mC
FCF
$674mC+
+13.7%B+
Rev
+12.4%B+
0.70B
D/E
0.01A
15.3xB+
P/E
11.3xA-
0.63A-
PEG
1.45B
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
CARG
BZ
44% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
47% below
~-5%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-5%/yr
+57%
1-yr DCF upside
+62%
+78%
5-yr DCF upside
+89%
+112%
10-yr DCF upside
+136%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
CARG
Why this score
Buying back stock
BZ
Why this score
Foreign reporter (CNY)
The companies
CARGCarGurus, Inc.
Internet Content & Information · $28.85 · beta 1.22
Why now
Internet Content & Information · market cap $2.6b. Down 30% from 52-week high of $41.22 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +14%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.63 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 11 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $41.27 (implying +43% upside).
Moat
Net margin 18% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 53% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 156% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Down 30% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up.
BZKanzhun Limited
Internet Content & Information · $15.73 · beta 0.49
Why now
Internet Content & Information · market cap $6.9b. Down 33% from 52-week high of $23.49 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +12%, comfortably above the S&P median. 22 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $21.79 (implying +39% upside).
Moat
Net margin 33% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 14% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 98% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Down 33% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up.
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 CARG and BZ diverge
On the headline score the gap is 19.4 points in favor of CARG. The widest single difference is Quality, where CARG leads by 11.7 points.
QualityCARG 86.2 · BZ 74.5CARG +11.7
ValueCARG 79.1 · BZ 75.0CARG +4.1
GrowthCARG 82.1 · BZ 81.4level
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 CARG or BZ the better stock?
CARG scores higher: CARG 82.4, BZ 63.0 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 CARG and BZ differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where CARG leads by 12 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. CARG also leads value, while growth is effectively level between them.
How are CARG and BZ 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.