Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. FOUR scored 71.0, TOST scored 71.0 — tied at the top.
Compare another set
FOUR
Shift4 Payments, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · Quality-Growth
71
$39.85 · $3.1B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
0.0
Tied
TOST
Toast, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · Quality-Growth
71
$31.32 · $18.1B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestTOST39.6x
Fastest growthFOUR+32.4%
Strongest balance sheetTOST0.00
Highest qualityTOST72 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueFOUR-59%
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)
FOUR
stronger →← stronger
TOST
54
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
72
86
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
94
77
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
53
TOST is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
FOUR
TOST
$433mC
FCF
$576mC+
+32.4%A
Rev
+23.0%A-
2.62D
D/E
0.00A
63.3xC
P/E
39.6xC+
0.29A
PEG
0.23A
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
FOUR
TOST
59% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
117% above
~-8%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~37%/yr
+89%
1-yr DCF upside
-64%
+144%
5-yr DCF upside
-54%
+250%
10-yr DCF upside
-35%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
FOUR
Why this score
Buying back stock
TOST
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
The companies
FOURShift4 Payments, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · $39.85 · beta 1.39
Why now
Software - Infrastructure · market cap $3.1b. Down 49% from 52-week high of $78.61 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +32% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.29 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 21 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $53.90 (implying +35% upside).
Moat
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
D/E 2.62 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Trailing P/E 63.3x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Down 49% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up.
TOSTToast, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · $31.32 · beta 1.74
Why now
Software - Infrastructure · market cap $18.1b. Down 21% from 52-week high of $39.73 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +23%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.23 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 26 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $38.92 (implying +24% upside).
Moat
ROE 24% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 119% 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
Beta 1.74 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. Trailing P/E 40x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. 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 FOUR and TOST 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.
ValueFOUR 77.4 · TOST 53.1FOUR +24.3
QualityFOUR 53.6 · TOST 71.7TOST +18.1
GrowthFOUR 86.3 · TOST 94.3TOST +8.0
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 FOUR or TOST the better stock?
On the Bull Rankings quality-growth score they are level: FOUR and TOST both score 71.0 out of 100. The score blends business quality, growth and valuation into one number, so a tie means the model sees no meaningful edge either way — the pillar breakdown on this page shows where each is actually stronger.
Where do FOUR and TOST differ most?
The widest gap is value, where FOUR leads by 24 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 FOUR and TOST 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.