Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. GEN scored 82.2, TWLO scored 62.3 — GEN leads.
Compare another set
GEN
Gen Digital Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · Quality-Growth
82.2
$23.25 · $13.9B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
19.9
GEN leads
TWLO
Twilio Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · Quality-Growth
62.3
$289.47 · $44.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestGEN13.6x
Fastest growthGEN+27.1%
Strongest balance sheetTWLO0.12
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
TWLO
80
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
56
88
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
89
79
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
49
GEN is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
GEN
TWLO
$1.5bC+
FCF
$1.0bC+
+27.1%A-
Rev
+17.8%B+
3.08D
D/E
0.12B+
13.6xA-
P/E
40.0xC+
1.17B+
PEG
0.43A
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
TWLO
42% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
179% above
~-4%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~40%/yr
+51%
1-yr DCF upside
-70%
+73%
5-yr DCF upside
-64%
+108%
10-yr DCF upside
-54%
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
TWLO
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.
TWLOTwilio Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · $289.47 · beta 1.36
Why now
Software - Infrastructure · market cap $44.5b. 6% off the 52-week high of $308.40. Revenue growing +18%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.43 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 28 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $265.71 (implying -8% 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 13% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. 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 40x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. SaaS displacement — recurring revenue is sticky in good times but accelerates in churn during a downturn as customers consolidate vendors and renegotiate seat counts.
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 TWLO diverge
On the headline score the gap is 19.9 points in favor of GEN. The widest single difference is Value, where GEN leads by 29.8 points.
ValueGEN 78.6 · TWLO 48.8GEN +29.8
QualityGEN 80.1 · TWLO 55.6GEN +24.5
GrowthGEN 88.2 · TWLO 89.3level
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 TWLO the better stock?
GEN scores higher: GEN 82.2, TWLO 62.3 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 TWLO differ most?
The widest gap is value, where GEN leads by 30 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. GEN also leads quality, while growth is effectively level between them.
How are GEN and TWLO 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.