Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CARG scored 82.4, NBIS scored 38.3 — CARG leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. CARG's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but NBIS'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
44.1
CARG leads
NBIS
Nebius Group N.V.
Internet Content & Information · Quality-Growth
38.3
$221.07 · $60.1B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthNBIS+479.0%
Strongest balance sheetCARG0.70
Highest qualityCARG86 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueCARG-44%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
CARG
stronger →← stronger
NBIS
86
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
30
82
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
100
79
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
19
CARG is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CARG
NBIS
$291mC
FCF
-$3.8bF
+13.7%B+
Rev
+479.0%A
0.70B
D/E
0.99C+
15.3xB+
P/E
—
0.63A-
PEG
0.51A-
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
NBIS
44% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
—
~-5%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
—
+57%
1-yr DCF upside
—
+78%
5-yr DCF upside
—
+112%
10-yr DCF upside
—
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
NBIS
Why this score
Buying back stock
Short track record
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.
NBISNebius Group N.V.
Internet Content & Information · $221.07 · beta 1.46
Why now
Internet Content & Information · market cap $60.1b. Down 26% from 52-week high of $299.86 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +479% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.51 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 20 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $283.60 (implying +28% upside).
Moat
Net margin 16% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. $60.1b market cap gives the company enough scale to absorb fixed costs that subscale competitors can't, without yet being so large that growth has to come from acquisition.
Risk
Free cash flow is negative (-$3.8b) — capital raises or debt issuance likely required; dilution / leverage risk. Trailing P/E 172.7x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Beta 1.46 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return.
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 NBIS diverge
On the headline score the gap is 44.1 points in favor of CARG. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueCARG 79.1 · NBIS 18.8CARG +60.3
QualityCARG 86.2 · NBIS 29.9CARG +56.3
GrowthCARG 82.1 · NBIS 100.0NBIS +17.9
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 NBIS the better stock?
CARG scores higher: CARG 82.4, NBIS 38.3 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 NBIS differ most?
The widest gap is value, where CARG leads by 60 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. Neither name sweeps: they trade the lead across the three pillars, so the comparison is a trade-off rather than one being better on every measure.
How are CARG and NBIS 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.