Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. GEN scored 82.2, MSFT scored 74.5 — GEN leads.
Compare another set
GEN
Gen Digital Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · Quality-Growth
82.2
$23.25 · $13.9B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
7.7
GEN leads
MSFT
Microsoft Corporation
Software - Infrastructure · Quality-Growth
74.5
$535.07 · $4.0T
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestGEN13.6x
Fastest growthGEN+27.1%
Strongest balance sheetMSFT0.29
Highest qualityMSFT86 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueGEN-42%
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)
GEN
stronger →← stronger
MSFT
80
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
86
88
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
88
79
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
54
GEN and MSFT split the three pillars evenly.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
GEN
MSFT
$1.5bC+
FCF
$67.0bA
+27.1%A-
Rev
+17.8%B+
3.08D
D/E
0.29B
13.6xA-
P/E
29.8xB
1.17B+
PEG
1.70C+
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
GEN
MSFT
42% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
219% above
~-4%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~43%/yr
+51%
1-yr DCF upside
-74%
+73%
5-yr DCF upside
-69%
+108%
10-yr DCF upside
-60%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
GEN
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
MSFT
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
The companies
GENGen Digital Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · $23.25 · beta 1.26
Why now
Software - Infrastructure · market cap $13.9b. Down 27% from 52-week high of $31.65 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +27% — in hypergrowth territory. 9 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $32.56 (implying +40% 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 42% — 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.
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.
MSFTMicrosoft Corporation
Software - Infrastructure · $535.07 · beta 1.10
Why now
Software - Infrastructure · market cap $4.0T. 3% off the 52-week high of $553.72. Revenue growing +18%, comfortably above the S&P median. 53 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $587.63 (implying +10% upside).
Moat
Net margin 40% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 30% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. $4.0T market cap places it among the largest companies in the sector — distribution, R&D, and customer-acquisition costs amortize across a base peers can't replicate.
Risk
P/S 12.0x embeds aggressive forward growth — disappointing top-line guidance would compress the multiple hard. 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 GEN and MSFT diverge
On the headline score the gap is 7.7 points in favor of GEN. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueGEN 78.6 · MSFT 54.2GEN +24.4
QualityGEN 80.1 · MSFT 86.5MSFT +6.4
GrowthGEN 88.2 · MSFT 88.1level
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 GEN or MSFT the better stock?
GEN scores higher: GEN 82.2, MSFT 74.5 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 GEN and MSFT differ most?
The widest gap is value, where GEN 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 GEN and MSFT 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.