Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. FICO scored 86.3, UBER scored 79.1 — FICO leads.
Compare another set
FICO
Fair Isaac Corporation
Software - Application · Quality-Growth
86.3
$667.58 · $14.4B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
7.2
FICO leads
UBER
Uber Technologies, Inc.
Software - Application · Quality-Growth
79.1
$71.51 · $146.1B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestUBER15.7x
Fastest growthUBER+16.7%
Highest qualityFICO91 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueUBER-25%
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)
FICO
stronger →← stronger
UBER
91
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
75
87
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
91
81
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
72
FICO is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
FICO
UBER
$961mC+
FCF
$10.1bA-
+15.9%B+
Rev
+16.7%B+
Negative equity
D/E
0.52B
19.3xB+
P/E
15.7xA-
0.67A-
PEG
5.99D
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
FICO
UBER
1% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
25% below
~10%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~8%/yr
-13%
1-yr DCF upside
+2%
+1%
5-yr DCF upside
+33%
+25%
10-yr DCF upside
+92%
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
FICO
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
UBER
Why this score
Buying back stock
The companies
FICOFair Isaac Corporation
Software - Application · $667.58 · beta 1.34
Why now
Software - Application · market cap $14.4b. Down 64% from 52-week high of $1858.91 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +16%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.67 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 19 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $1,113 (implying +67% upside).
Moat
Net margin 34% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. FCF converts 118% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash. 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 64% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. 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.
UBERUber Technologies, Inc.
Software - Application · $71.51 · beta 1.26
Why now
Software - Application · market cap $146.1b. Down 29% from 52-week high of $100.35 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +17%, comfortably above the S&P median. 46 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $100.86 (implying +41% upside).
Moat
Net margin 17% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 35% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 106% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
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.
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 FICO and UBER diverge
On the headline score the gap is 7.2 points in favor of FICO. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
QualityFICO 91.1 · UBER 75.3FICO +15.8
ValueFICO 81.3 · UBER 72.2FICO +9.1
GrowthFICO 86.7 · UBER 90.9UBER +4.2
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 FICO or UBER the better stock?
FICO scores higher: FICO 86.3, UBER 79.1 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 FICO and UBER differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where FICO leads by 16 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 FICO and UBER 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.