Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. GEN scored 82.2, PAY scored 76.7 — GEN leads.
Compare another set
GEN
Gen Digital Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · Quality-Growth
82.2
$23.25 · $13.9B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
5.5
GEN leads
PAY
Paymentus Holdings, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · Quality-Growth
76.7
$31.88 · $4.0B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestGEN13.6x
Fastest growthPAY+30.2%
Strongest balance sheetPAY0.02
Highest qualityGEN80 / 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
PAY
80
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
69
88
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
96
79
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
69
GEN is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
GEN
PAY
$1.5bC+
FCF
$159mC
+27.1%A-
Rev
+30.2%A
3.08D
D/E
0.02A-
13.6xA-
P/E
48.3xC+
1.17B+
PEG
2.48C
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
PAY
42% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
38% above
~-4%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~24%/yr
+51%
1-yr DCF upside
-44%
+73%
5-yr DCF upside
-28%
+108%
10-yr DCF upside
+4%
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
PAY
No notable signals flagged.
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.
PAYPaymentus Holdings, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · $31.88 · beta 1.34
Why now
Software - Infrastructure · market cap $4.0b. Down 30% from 52-week high of $45.31 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +30% — in hypergrowth territory. 7 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $40.14 (implying +26% upside).
Moat
ROE 14% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 188% 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
Trailing P/E 48x 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 GEN and PAY diverge
On the headline score the gap is 5.5 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.
QualityGEN 80.1 · PAY 68.6GEN +11.5
ValueGEN 78.6 · PAY 68.5GEN +10.1
GrowthGEN 88.2 · PAY 95.9PAY +7.7
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 PAY the better stock?
GEN scores higher: GEN 82.2, PAY 76.7 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 PAY differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where GEN leads by 12 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 PAY 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.