Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. EEFT scored 70.9, PGY scored 82.0 — PGY leads.
Compare another set
EEFT
Euronet Worldwide, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · Quality-Growth
70.9
$64.60 · $2.4B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
11.1
PGY leads
PGY
Pagaya Technologies Ltd.
Software - Infrastructure · Quality-Growth
82
$18.22 · $1.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestEEFT10.3x
Fastest growthPGY+25.6%
Strongest balance sheetPGY1.34
Highest qualityPGY70 / 100
Largest discount to fair valuePGY-58%
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
PGY
65
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
70
65
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
88
84
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
90
PGY is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
EEFT
PGY
$269mC
FCF
$252mC
+6.4%C+
Rev
+25.6%A-
2.25D
D/E
1.34C
10.3xA
P/E
13.2xA
0.41A
PEG
0.03A
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
PGY
55% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
58% below
~-11%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-7%/yr
+102%
1-yr DCF upside
+84%
+122%
5-yr DCF upside
+136%
+157%
10-yr DCF upside
+232%
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
PGY
Why this score
Durable high returns
Diluting shareholders
The companies
EEFTEuronet Worldwide, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · $64.60 · beta 0.84
Why now
Software - Infrastructure · market cap $2.4b. Down 28% from 52-week high of $89.44 — deep drawdown territory. PEG 0.41 — 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 +31% 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.
PGYPagaya Technologies Ltd.
Software - Infrastructure · $18.22 · beta 5.52
Why now
Software - Infrastructure · market cap $1.5b. Down 41% from 52-week high of $31.06 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +26% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.03 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 11 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $28.82 (implying +58% upside).
Moat
ROE 19% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. 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
Down 41% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 5.52 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. 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 EEFT and PGY diverge
On the headline score the gap is 11.1 points in favor of PGY. The widest single difference is Growth, where PGY leads by 22.5 points.
GrowthEEFT 65.0 · PGY 87.5PGY +22.5
ValueEEFT 84.0 · PGY 89.8PGY +5.8
QualityEEFT 65.2 · PGY 70.1PGY +4.9
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 PGY or EEFT the better stock?
PGY scores higher: PGY 82.0, EEFT 70.9 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 PGY and EEFT differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where PGY leads by 23 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. PGY leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are PGY 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.