COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026

BR vs EPAM

Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. BR scored 71.6, EPAM scored 82.0 — EPAM leads.
Compare another set
BR
Broadridge Financial Solutions,
Information Technology Services · Quality-Growth
71.6
$182.18 · $20.8B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
10.4
EPAM leads
EPAM
EPAM Systems, Inc.
Information Technology Services · Quality-Growth
82
$110.34 · $5.7B
fundamentals as of
  • CheapestEPAM15.0x
  • Fastest growthEPAM+10.8%
  • Strongest balance sheetEPAM0.04
  • Highest qualityBR81 / 100
  • Largest discount to fair valueBR-13%
THE BULL RANKINGS SCORECARD71.6/ 100 · BULL SCOREPEER MEDIANQUALITY81.4GROWTH76.6VALUE59.0
THE BULL RANKINGS SCORECARD82.0/ 100 · BULL SCOREPEER MEDIANQUALITY73.2GROWTH82.3VALUE91.7
BREPAMQuality81.473.2Growth76.682.3Value59.091.7
cheap & fastrevenue growth →← cheaper (lower multiple)-1%21%10.0x24xBREPAM

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.

FCFBR$1.3bEPAM$483m
RevBR+8.5%EPAM+10.8%
D/EBR1.24EPAM0.04
P/EBR19.0xEPAM15.0x
PEGBR1.91EPAM0.57
BR
stronger →← stronger
EPAM
81
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
73
77
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
82
59
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
92
EPAM is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
BR
EPAM
$1.3bC+
FCF
$483mC
+8.5%B
Rev
+10.8%B
1.24C
D/E
0.04A-
19.0xA-
P/E
15.0xA-
1.91C+
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.
BR
EPAM
13% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
5% below
~3%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~4%/yr
+6%
1-yr DCF upside
+0%
+15%
5-yr DCF upside
+5%
+31%
10-yr DCF upside
+13%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
BR
Why this score
  • Buying back stock
  • Raising its dividend
  • Durable high returns
EPAM
Why this score
  • Buying back stock
BRBroadridge Financial Solutions,
Information Technology Services · $182.18 · beta 0.89
Why now
Information Technology Services · market cap $20.8b. Down 31% from 52-week high of $263.00 — deep drawdown territory. 8 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $213.25 (implying +17% upside).
Moat
Net margin 15% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 40% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 114% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Down 31% 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.
Information Technology Services · $110.34 · beta 1.37
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.
EPAM leads BR by 2.5 points (80.2 to 77.7), its sharpest advantage coming in D/E (grade B+). A contrarian could still prefer BR, which trades about 21% below our DCF fair value — a margin of safety the score doesn't reward. Note they play different roles — BR screens as growth, EPAM screens as value — so the model rewards different traits for each.
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 BR and EPAM diverge

On the headline score the gap is 10.4 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.

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.