Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CSCO scored 57.1, UI scored 66.1 — UI leads.
Compare another set
CSCO
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Communication Equipment · Quality-Growth
57.1
$118.39 · $466.8B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
9.0
UI leads
UI
Ubiquiti Inc.
Communication Equipment · Quality-Growth
66.1
$657.29 · $39.8B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestCSCO34.5x
Fastest growthUI+27.2%
Strongest balance sheetUI0.06
Highest qualityUI89 / 100
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)
CSCO
stronger →← stronger
UI
77
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
89
74
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
81
32
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
40
UI is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CSCO
UI
$12.8bA-
FCF
$909mC+
+11.8%B
Rev
+27.2%A-
0.62C+
D/E
0.06A-
34.5xB
P/E
41.5xC+
1.06B+
PEG
1.10B+
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
CSCO
UI
115% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
210% above
~26%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~39%/yr
-57%
1-yr DCF upside
-71%
-53%
5-yr DCF upside
-68%
-49%
10-yr DCF upside
-63%
These two disagree on this pair: the Value pillar ranks cheapness against sector peers, while price-vs-fair-value is an absolute read. A name can be the better value in its sector and still the dearer one on cash flows.
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
CSCO
Why this score
Durable high returns
UI
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
The companies
CSCOCisco Systems, Inc.
Communication Equipment · $118.39 · beta 0.98
Why now
Communication Equipment · market cap $466.8b. 9% off the 52-week high of $130.37. Revenue growing +12%, comfortably above the S&P median. 25 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $136.16 (implying +15% upside).
Moat
Net margin 21% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 27% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 96% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Trailing P/E 35x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
UIUbiquiti Inc.
Communication Equipment · $657.29 · beta 1.31
Why now
Communication Equipment · market cap $39.8b. Down 40% from 52-week high of $1099.99 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +27% — in hypergrowth territory.
Moat
Net margin 29% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 67% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which.
Risk
Down 40% 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 41x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. P/S 12.2x embeds aggressive forward growth — disappointing top-line guidance would compress the multiple hard.
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 CSCO and UI diverge
On the headline score the gap is 9.0 points in favor of UI. The widest single difference is Quality, where UI leads by 12.1 points.
QualityCSCO 77.2 · UI 89.3UI +12.1
ValueCSCO 32.5 · UI 40.0UI +7.5
GrowthCSCO 74.1 · UI 80.9UI +6.8
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 UI or CSCO the better stock?
UI scores higher: UI 66.1, CSCO 57.1 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 UI and CSCO differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where UI leads by 12 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. UI leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are UI and CSCO 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.