COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
CPAY vs EEFT
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CPAY scored 78.8, EEFT scored 76.2 — CPAY leads.
Compare another set
CPAY
Corpay, Inc.
78.8
$417.13 · $27.4B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
2.6
CPAY leads
EEFT
Euronet Worldwide, Inc.
76.2
$70.07 · $2.6B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestEEFT11.1x
- Fastest growthCPAY+20.4%
- Strongest balance sheetEEFT2.25
- Highest qualityCPAY88 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueEEFT-53%
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)
CPAY
stronger →← stronger
EEFT
88
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
65
92
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
72
60
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
94
CPAY is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CPAY
EEFT
$1.6bC+
FCF
$269mC
+20.4%A-
Rev
+6.4%C+
2.75D
D/E
2.25D
25.4xB+
P/E
11.1xA
0.93B+
PEG
0.50A
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
CPAY
EEFT
20% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
53% below
~3%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~-10%/yr
+9%
1-yr DCF upside
+89%
+26%
5-yr DCF upside
+111%
+55%
10-yr DCF upside
+150%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
CPAY
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Durable high returns
EEFT
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Durable high returns
The companies
CPAYCorpay, Inc.
Why now
Software - Infrastructure · market cap $27.4b. Trading near 52-week high of $425.95 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. Revenue growing +20%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.93 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 14 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $450.64 (implying +8% upside).
Moat
Net margin 23% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 32% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 144% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
D/E 2.75 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Trading within 2% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. 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.
EEFTEuronet Worldwide, Inc.
Why now
Software - Infrastructure · market cap $2.6b. Down 29% from 52-week high of $98.48 — deep drawdown territory. PEG 0.50 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 6 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $87.50 (implying +25% upside).
Moat
ROE 22% sits above Buffett's preferred 15% threshold — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. 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
D/E 2.25 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Customer concentration — many software businesses depend on a handful of enterprise accounts; the loss of one $10M+ contract can swing the next quarter's growth narrative.
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 CPAY and EEFT diverge
On the headline score the gap is 2.6 points in favor of CPAY. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- ValueCPAY 60.4 · EEFT 94.1EEFT +33.7
- QualityCPAY 88.3 · EEFT 65.0CPAY +23.3
- GrowthCPAY 91.9 · EEFT 72.3CPAY +19.6
Pillars run 0–100 against sector peers, so a 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.