Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. DDOG scored 48.0, GRND scored 90.4 — GRND leads.
Compare another set
DDOG
Datadog, Inc.
Software - Application · Quality-Growth
48
$293.26 · $105.3B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
42.4
GRND leads
GRND
Grindr Inc.
Software - Application · Quality-Growth
90.4
$15.03 · $2.6B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthGRND+32.4%
Highest qualityGRND94 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueGRND-27%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
DDOG
stronger →← stronger
GRND
43
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
94
93
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
96
28
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
82
GRND is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
DDOG
GRND
$1.1bC+
FCF
$154mC
+27.7%A-
Rev
+32.4%A
0.29B
D/E
Negative equity
26.5xD
P/S
—
1.41B
PEG
1.13B+
—
P/E
32.0xB
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
DDOG
GRND
498% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
27% below
>60%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~7%/yr
-87%
1-yr DCF upside
+5%
-83%
5-yr DCF upside
+37%
-76%
10-yr DCF upside
+102%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
DDOG
No notable signals flagged.
GRND
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
The companies
DDOGDatadog, Inc.
Software - Application · $293.26 · beta 1.51
Why now
Software - Application · market cap $105.3b. Trading near 52-week high of $294.00 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. Revenue growing +28% — in hypergrowth territory. 47 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $287.83 (implying -2% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of stock-based pay ($823m) — a real cost to shareholders, paid in shares rather than cash. $105.3b 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. 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 0% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. Beta 1.51 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. P/S 26.5x embeds aggressive forward growth — disappointing top-line guidance would compress the multiple hard.
GRNDGrindr Inc.
Software - Application · $15.03 · beta 0.19
Why now
Software - Application · market cap $2.6b. 19% off the 52-week high of $18.50. Revenue growing +32% — in hypergrowth territory. 5 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $20.80 (implying +38% upside).
Moat
Net margin 19% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. FCF converts 161% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash. 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
Trailing P/E 32x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. 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 DDOG and GRND diverge
On the headline score the gap is 42.4 points in favor of GRND. The widest single difference is Value, where GRND leads by 54.1 points.
ValueDDOG 27.8 · GRND 81.9GRND +54.1
QualityDDOG 43.0 · GRND 93.7GRND +50.7
GrowthDDOG 92.7 · GRND 96.3GRND +3.6
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 GRND or DDOG the better stock?
GRND scores higher: GRND 90.4, DDOG 48.0 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 GRND and DDOG differ most?
The widest gap is value, where GRND leads by 54 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. GRND leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are GRND and DDOG 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.