Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CARG scored 82.4, META scored 71.4 — CARG leads.
Compare another set
CARG
CarGurus, Inc.
Internet Content & Information · Quality-Growth
82.4
$28.85 · $2.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
11.0
CARG leads
META
Meta Platforms, Inc.
Internet Content & Information · Quality-Growth
71.4
$718.67 · $1.8T
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestCARG15.3x
Fastest growthMETA+27.7%
Strongest balance sheetMETA0.43
Highest qualityMETA89 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueCARG-44%
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
META
86
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
89
82
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
82
79
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
50
CARG and META split the three pillars evenly.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CARG
META
$291mC
FCF
$41.0bA
+13.7%B+
Rev
+27.7%A-
0.70B
D/E
0.43B+
15.3xB+
P/E
27.1xC+
0.63A-
PEG
0.95B+
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
META
44% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
152% above
~-5%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~37%/yr
+57%
1-yr DCF upside
-67%
+78%
5-yr DCF upside
-60%
+112%
10-yr DCF upside
-48%
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
META
Why this score
Durable high returns
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.
METAMeta Platforms, Inc.
Internet Content & Information · $718.67 · beta 1.19
Why now
Internet Content & Information · market cap $1.8T. 8% off the 52-week high of $779.82. Revenue growing +28% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.95 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 58 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $799.34 (implying +11% upside).
Moat
Net margin 30% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 26% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. $1.8T 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
Value re-rating depends on a catalyst. Without one — analyst day, divestiture, margin recovery, capital return — the stock can stay cheap on these multiples for years.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
CARG leads META by 5.3 points (83.5 to 78.2). A contrarian could still prefer META for its stronger FCF (grade A).
Our AI analyst is busy right now, so this verdict is drawn directly from the pillars, grades and DCF above.
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 META diverge
On the headline score the gap is 11.0 points in favor of CARG. The widest single difference is Value, where CARG leads by 28.9 points.
ValueCARG 79.1 · META 50.2CARG +28.9
QualityCARG 86.2 · META 88.7level
GrowthCARG 82.1 · META 81.8level
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 CARG or META the better stock?
CARG scores higher: CARG 82.4, META 71.4 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 META differ most?
The widest gap is value, where CARG leads by 29 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. The other two pillars are close enough to call level, so this is the one place they genuinely separate.
How are CARG and META 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.