Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. GEN scored 82.2, PRGS scored 67.9 — GEN leads.
Compare another set
GEN
Gen Digital Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · Quality-Growth
82.2
$23.25 · $13.9B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
14.3
GEN leads
PRGS
Progress Software Corporation
Software - Infrastructure · Quality-Growth
67.9
$39.33 · $1.6B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestGEN13.6x
Fastest growthGEN+27.1%
Strongest balance sheetPRGS2.39
Highest qualityGEN80 / 100
Largest discount to fair valuePRGS-76%
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
PRGS
80
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
67
88
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
66
79
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
71
GEN is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
GEN
PRGS
$1.5bC+
FCF
$319mC
+27.1%A-
Rev
+6.4%C+
3.08D
D/E
2.39D
13.6xA-
P/E
18.1xA-
1.17B+
PEG
1.10B+
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
PRGS
42% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
76% below
~-4%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-23%/yr
+51%
1-yr DCF upside
+261%
+73%
5-yr DCF upside
+322%
+108%
10-yr DCF upside
+431%
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
GEN
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
PRGS
Why this score
Buying back stock
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.
PRGSProgress Software Corporation
Software - Infrastructure · $39.33 · beta 0.89
Why now
Software - Infrastructure · market cap $1.6b. 17% off the 52-week high of $47.25. 5 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $56.20 (implying +43% upside).
Moat
ROE 17% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of depreciation and amortization ($148m) — non-cash charges that hold down reported earnings while cash generation stays strong. 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 2.39 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 GEN and PRGS diverge
On the headline score the gap is 14.3 points in favor of GEN. The widest single difference is Growth, where GEN leads by 22.6 points.
GrowthGEN 88.2 · PRGS 65.6GEN +22.6
QualityGEN 80.1 · PRGS 67.3GEN +12.8
ValueGEN 78.6 · PRGS 70.9GEN +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 PRGS the better stock?
GEN scores higher: GEN 82.2, PRGS 67.9 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 PRGS differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where GEN leads by 23 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. GEN leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are GEN and PRGS 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.