COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
ACN vs EPAM
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. ACN scored 78.4, EPAM scored 82.0 — EPAM leads.
Compare another set
ACN
Accenture plc
78.4
$185.28 · $113.4B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
3.6
EPAM leads
EPAM
EPAM Systems, Inc.
82
$110.34 · $5.7B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestACN14.8x
- Fastest growthEPAM+10.8%
- Strongest balance sheetEPAM0.04
- Highest qualityACN89 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueACN-39%
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)
ACN
stronger →← stronger
EPAM
89
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
73
71
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
82
77
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
92
EPAM is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
ACN
EPAM
$12.6bA-
FCF
$483mC
+6.7%C+
Rev
+10.8%B
0.25B
D/E
0.04A-
14.8xA-
P/E
15.0xA-
1.33B
PEG
0.57A-
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
ACN
EPAM
39% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
5% below
~-7%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~4%/yr
+58%
1-yr DCF upside
+0%
+64%
5-yr DCF upside
+5%
+73%
10-yr DCF upside
+13%
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
ACN
Why this score
- Raising its dividend
- Durable high returns
EPAM
Why this score
- Buying back stock
The companies
ACNAccenture plc
Why now
Information Technology Services · market cap $113.4b. Down 36% from 52-week high of $291.09 — deep drawdown territory. 25 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $179.11 (implying -3% upside).
Moat
ROE 24% sits above Buffett's preferred 15% threshold — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 162% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined. $113.4b market cap gives the company enough scale to absorb fixed costs that subscale competitors can't, without yet being so large that growth has to come from acquisition.
Risk
Down 36% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up.
EPAMEPAM Systems, Inc.
Why now
Information Technology Services · market cap $5.7b. Down 50% from 52-week high of $222.53 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +11%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.57 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 17 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $122.82 (implying +11% upside).
Moat
ROE 11% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 120% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Down 50% 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
ACN and EPAM score effectively even on the Bull Rankings model (80.2 versus 80.2), so none holds a clear model edge — the call comes down to which trade-off you weight more: sector exposure (Information Technology Services) and valuation.
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 ACN and EPAM diverge
On the headline score the gap is 3.6 points in favor of EPAM. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- QualityACN 88.5 · EPAM 73.2ACN +15.3
- ValueACN 76.9 · EPAM 91.7EPAM +14.8
- GrowthACN 70.7 · EPAM 82.3EPAM +11.6
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.