Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. EEFT scored 70.7, FOUR scored 71.0 — FOUR leads.
Compare another set
EEFT
Euronet Worldwide, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · Quality-Growth
70.7
$63.81 · $2.4B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
0.3
FOUR leads
FOUR
Shift4 Payments, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · Quality-Growth
71
$39.85 · $3.1B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestEEFT10.1x
Fastest growthFOUR+32.4%
Strongest balance sheetEEFT2.25
Highest qualityEEFT65 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueFOUR-59%
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)
EEFT
stronger →← stronger
FOUR
65
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
54
65
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
86
83
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
77
EEFT is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
EEFT
FOUR
$269mC
FCF
$433mC
+6.4%C+
Rev
+32.4%A
2.25D
D/E
2.62D
10.1xA
P/E
63.3xC
0.42A
PEG
0.29A
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
EEFT
FOUR
56% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
59% below
~-11%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-8%/yr
+104%
1-yr DCF upside
+89%
+125%
5-yr DCF upside
+144%
+160%
10-yr DCF upside
+250%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
EEFT
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
FOUR
Why this score
Buying back stock
The companies
EEFTEuronet Worldwide, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · $63.81 · beta 0.84
Why now
Software - Infrastructure · market cap $2.4b. Down 29% from 52-week high of $89.44 — deep drawdown territory. PEG 0.42 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 6 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $84.67 (implying +33% upside).
Moat
ROE 22% is above 15% — 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.
FOURShift4 Payments, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · $39.85 · beta 1.39
Why now
Software - Infrastructure · market cap $3.1b. Down 49% from 52-week high of $78.61 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +32% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.29 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 21 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $53.90 (implying +35% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income. 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 2.62 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Trailing P/E 63.3x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Down 49% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up.
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 EEFT and FOUR 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.
GrowthEEFT 65.0 · FOUR 86.3FOUR +21.3
QualityEEFT 65.2 · FOUR 53.6EEFT +11.6
ValueEEFT 83.5 · FOUR 77.4EEFT +6.1
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 FOUR or EEFT the better stock?
FOUR scores higher: FOUR 71.0, EEFT 70.7 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 FOUR and EEFT differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where FOUR leads by 21 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 FOUR and EEFT 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.