COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
EPAM vs G
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. EPAM scored 82.0, G scored 76.1 — EPAM leads.
Compare another set
EPAM
EPAM Systems, Inc.
82
$110.34 · $5.7B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
5.9
EPAM leads
G
Genpact Limited
76.1
$37.14 · $6.2B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestG11.1x
- Fastest growthEPAM+10.8%
- Strongest balance sheetEPAM0.04
- Highest qualityG80 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueG-57%
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)
EPAM
stronger →← stronger
G
73
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
80
82
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
73
92
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
76
EPAM is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
EPAM
G
$483mC
FCF
$572mC+
+10.8%B
Rev
+6.5%C+
0.04A-
D/E
0.54C+
15.0xA-
P/E
11.1xA
0.57A-
PEG
1.16B+
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
EPAM
G
5% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
57% below
~4%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~-13%/yr
+0%
1-yr DCF upside
+115%
+5%
5-yr DCF upside
+135%
+13%
10-yr DCF upside
+168%
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
EPAM
Why this score
- Buying back stock
G
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Raising its dividend
- Durable high returns
The companies
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.
GGenpact Limited
Why now
Information Technology Services · market cap $6.2b. Down 24% from 52-week high of $48.64 — deep drawdown territory. 11 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $42.18 (implying +14% upside).
Moat
ROE 22% sits above Buffett's preferred 15% threshold — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 98% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Value re-rating depends on a catalyst. Without one — analyst day, divestiture, margin recovery, capital return — the stock can stay cheap on these multiples for years.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
EPAM leads G by 6.4 points (82.1 to 75.7), its sharpest advantage coming in Rev (grade B+). A contrarian could still prefer G, which trades about 65% below our DCF fair value — a margin of safety the score doesn't reward.
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 EPAM and G diverge
On the headline score the gap is 5.9 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.
- ValueEPAM 91.7 · G 75.7EPAM +16.0
- GrowthEPAM 82.3 · G 72.7EPAM +9.6
- QualityEPAM 73.2 · G 80.2G +7.0
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.