Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. GOOGL scored 79.5, PINS scored 59.3 — GOOGL leads.
Compare another set
GOOGL
Alphabet Inc.
Internet Content & Information · Quality-Growth
79.5
$351.66 · $4.3T
fundamentals as of
Score gap
20.2
GOOGL leads
PINS
Pinterest, Inc.
Internet Content & Information · Quality-Growth
59.3
$21.40 · $12.1B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestGOOGL17.6x
Fastest growthGOOGL+20.1%
Strongest balance sheetGOOGL0.19
Highest qualityGOOGL84 / 100
Largest discount to fair valuePINS-58%
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)
GOOGL
stronger →← stronger
PINS
84
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
62
91
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
90
66
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
37
GOOGL is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
GOOGL
PINS
$53.3bA
FCF
$1.3bC+
+20.1%A-
Rev
+16.6%B+
0.19A-
D/E
0.41B+
17.6xB
P/E
61.1xC
1.22B
PEG
0.27A
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
GOOGL
PINS
349% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
58% below
~54%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-9%/yr
-82%
1-yr DCF upside
+95%
-78%
5-yr DCF upside
+136%
-70%
10-yr DCF upside
+212%
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
GOOGL
Why this score
Durable high returns
PINS
No notable signals flagged.
The companies
GOOGLAlphabet Inc.
Internet Content & Information · $351.66 · beta 1.21
Why now
Internet Content & Information · market cap $4.3T. 14% off the 52-week high of $408.61. Revenue growing +20%, comfortably above the S&P median. 54 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $429.47 (implying +22% upside).
Moat
Net margin 55% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 38% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. $4.3T 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
Mature compounder — the risk is paying up for quality at a moment when growth is decelerating. Watch for sequential revenue + margin trends; the inflection from "compounder" to "ex-compounder" is hard to spot until the multiple already started compressing.
PINSPinterest, Inc.
Internet Content & Information · $21.40 · beta 0.90
Why now
Internet Content & Information · market cap $12.1b. Down 40% from 52-week high of $35.42 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +17%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.27 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 35 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $29.05 (implying +36% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of stock-based pay ($1.0b) — a real cost to shareholders, paid in shares rather than cash.
Risk
Trailing P/E 61.1x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Down 40% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up.
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 GOOGL and PINS diverge
On the headline score the gap is 20.2 points in favor of GOOGL. The widest single difference is Value, where GOOGL leads by 28.6 points.
ValueGOOGL 65.8 · PINS 37.2GOOGL +28.6
QualityGOOGL 84.4 · PINS 62.5GOOGL +21.9
GrowthGOOGL 90.5 · PINS 90.0level
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 GOOGL or PINS the better stock?
GOOGL scores higher: GOOGL 79.5, PINS 59.3 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 GOOGL and PINS differ most?
The widest gap is value, where GOOGL leads by 29 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. GOOGL also leads quality, while growth is effectively level between them.
How are GOOGL and PINS 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.