COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
ADSK vs GEN
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. ADSK scored 82.2, GEN scored 76.5 — ADSK leads.
Compare another set
ADSK
Autodesk, Inc.
82.2
$253.82 · $53.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
5.7
ADSK leads
GEN
Gen Digital Inc.
76.5
$28.93 · $17.3B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestGEN16.9x
- Fastest growthGEN+20.2%
- Strongest balance sheetADSK0.85
- Highest qualityADSK88 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueGEN-29%
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)
ADSK
stronger →← stronger
GEN
88
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
80
86
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
92
73
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
61
ADSK is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
ADSK
GEN
$2.7bB
FCF
$1.5bC+
+18.3%B+
Rev
+20.2%A-
0.85C+
D/E
3.08D
37.1xB
P/E
16.9xA-
0.96B+
PEG
1.39B
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
ADSK
GEN
33% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
29% below
~16%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~0%/yr
-33%
1-yr DCF upside
+25%
-25%
5-yr DCF upside
+41%
-10%
10-yr DCF upside
+69%
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
ADSK
Why this score
- Durable high returns
GEN
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Durable high returns
The companies
ADSKAutodesk, Inc.
Why now
Software - Application · market cap $53.6b. Down 23% from 52-week high of $329.09 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +18%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.96 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 34 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $314.19 (implying +24% upside).
Moat
Net margin 19% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 46% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 187% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Trailing P/E 37x 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.
GENGen Digital Inc.
Why now
Software - Infrastructure · market cap $17.3b. 8% off the 52-week high of $31.57. Revenue growing +20%, comfortably above the S&P median. 10 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $32.11 (implying +11% upside).
Moat
Net margin 21% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 40% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 147% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
D/E 3.08 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. 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 ADSK and GEN diverge
On the headline score the gap is 5.7 points in favor of ADSK. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- ValueADSK 73.4 · GEN 60.6ADSK +12.8
- QualityADSK 87.9 · GEN 80.1ADSK +7.8
- GrowthADSK 85.9 · GEN 92.1GEN +6.2
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.