Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. EFX scored 66.7, VRSK scored 67.0 — VRSK leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. EFX's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but VRSK's are as of March 2026 — a 3-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
EFX
Equifax Inc.
Consulting Services · Quality-Growth
66.7
$145.78 · $17.1B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
0.3
VRSK leads
VRSK
Verisk Analytics, Inc.
Consulting Services · Quality-Growth
67
$177.63 · $23.1B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestEFX25.7x
Fastest growthEFX+6.9%
Highest qualityVRSK91 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueVRSK-1%
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)
EFX
stronger →← stronger
VRSK
70
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
91
70
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
62
60
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
53
EFX is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
EFX
VRSK
$1.1bC+
FCF
$1.1bC+
+6.9%C+
Rev
+5.9%C+
1.21C
D/E
Negative equity
25.7xB
P/E
27.3xB
1.23B
PEG
1.48B
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
EFX
VRSK
21% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
1% below
~11%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~5%/yr
-21%
1-yr DCF upside
-2%
-17%
5-yr DCF upside
+1%
-11%
10-yr DCF upside
+6%
These two disagree on this pair: the Value pillar ranks cheapness against sector peers, while price-vs-fair-value is an absolute read. A name can be the better value in its sector and still the dearer one on cash flows.
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
EFX
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
VRSK
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
The companies
EFXEquifax Inc.
Consulting Services · $145.78 · beta 1.34
Why now
Consulting Services · market cap $17.1b. Down 39% from 52-week high of $238.94 — deep drawdown territory. 21 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $203.10 (implying +39% upside).
Moat
ROE 14% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 160% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Down 39% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up.
VRSKVerisk Analytics, Inc.
Consulting Services · $177.63 · beta 0.69
Why now
Consulting Services · market cap $23.1b. Down 28% from 52-week high of $245.69 — deep drawdown territory. 17 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $230.94 (implying +30% 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. FCF converts 124% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Mature compounder — the risk is paying up for quality at a moment when growth is decelerating. Watch for sequential revenue + margin trends; the inflection from "compounder" to "ex-compounder" is hard to spot until the multiple already started compressing.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
The model slightly favors EFX (70.8) over VRSK (70) due to EFX's stronger Growth pillar at 81, reflected in its B-grade revenue expansion of +10.3%. A contrarian, however, might prefer VRSK, which trades 13% below its DCF fair value and has only 5% implied growth priced in.
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 EFX and VRSK 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.
QualityEFX 70.2 · VRSK 91.2VRSK +21.0
GrowthEFX 70.1 · VRSK 62.2EFX +7.9
ValueEFX 60.2 · VRSK 52.9EFX +7.3
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 VRSK or EFX the better stock?
VRSK scores higher: VRSK 67.0, EFX 66.7 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 VRSK and EFX differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where VRSK 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 VRSK and EFX 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.