Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. DOCS scored 70.8, VEEV scored 70.6 — DOCS leads.
Compare another set
DOCS
Doximity, Inc.
Health Information Services · Quality-Growth
70.8
$30.50 · $5.4B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
0.2
DOCS leads
VEEV
Veeva Systems Inc.
Health Information Services · Quality-Growth
70.6
$296.13 · $47.9B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestDOCS35.9x
Fastest growthVEEV+16.5%
Strongest balance sheetDOCS0.01
Highest qualityDOCS88 / 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)
DOCS
stronger →← stronger
VEEV
88
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
78
70
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
85
58
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
54
DOCS is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
DOCS
VEEV
$297mC
FCF
$1.7bC+
+13.1%B+
Rev
+16.5%B+
0.01A-
D/E
0.02A-
35.9xC+
P/E
48.5xC
0.59A-
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
DOCS
VEEV
18% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
40% above
~13%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~19%/yr
-25%
1-yr DCF upside
-39%
-15%
5-yr DCF upside
-28%
0%
10-yr DCF upside
-9%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
DOCS
Why this score
Durable high returns
VEEV
No notable signals flagged.
The companies
DOCSDoximity, Inc.
Health Information Services · $30.50 · beta 1.22
Why now
Health Information Services · market cap $5.4b. Down 58% from 52-week high of $72.24 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +13%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.59 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 18 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $29.67 (implying -3% upside).
Moat
Net margin 25% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 17% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 178% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Down 58% 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 36x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
VEEVVeeva Systems Inc.
Health Information Services · $296.13 · beta 0.93
Why now
Health Information Services · market cap $47.9b. Trading near 52-week high of $302.17 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. Revenue growing +17%, comfortably above the S&P median. 27 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $297.04 (implying +0% upside).
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 14% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 164% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Trading within 2% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. Trailing P/E 49x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. P/S 13.9x embeds aggressive forward growth — disappointing top-line guidance would compress the multiple hard.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
DOCS leads VEEV by 6.9 points (81.8 to 74.9), its sharpest advantage coming in P/E (grade B). A contrarian could still prefer VEEV for its stronger FCF (grade C+).
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 DOCS and VEEV diverge
The two are effectively level on the headline score. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
GrowthDOCS 69.7 · VEEV 84.6VEEV +14.9
QualityDOCS 87.5 · VEEV 77.7DOCS +9.8
ValueDOCS 58.2 · VEEV 53.6DOCS +4.6
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 DOCS or VEEV the better stock?
DOCS scores higher: DOCS 70.8, VEEV 70.6 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 DOCS and VEEV differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where VEEV leads by 15 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 DOCS and VEEV 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.