Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. GOOGL scored 79.5, Z scored 38.0 — GOOGL leads.
Compare another set
GOOGL
Alphabet Inc.
Internet Content & Information · Quality-Growth
79.5
$351.66 · $4.3T
fundamentals as of
Score gap
41.5
GOOGL leads
Z
Zillow Group, Inc.
Internet Content & Information · Quality-Growth
38
$29.01 · $6.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestGOOGL17.6x
Fastest growthGOOGL+20.1%
Strongest balance sheetZ0.13
Highest qualityGOOGL84 / 100
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
Z
84
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
34
91
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
85
66
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
19
GOOGL is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
GOOGL
Z
$53.3bA
FCF
$258mC
+20.1%A-
Rev
+17.7%B+
0.19A-
D/E
0.13A-
17.6xB
P/E
126.1xD
1.22B
PEG
0.93B+
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
Z
349% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
105% above
~54%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~32%/yr
-82%
1-yr DCF upside
-59%
-78%
5-yr DCF upside
-51%
-70%
10-yr DCF upside
-39%
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
Z
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
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.
ZZillow Group, Inc.
Internet Content & Information · $29.01 · beta 2.02
Why now
Internet Content & Information · market cap $6.5b. Down 63% from 52-week high of $79.40 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +18%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.93 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 6 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $46.00 (implying +59% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income.
Risk
Trailing P/E 126.1x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Down 63% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 2.02 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return.
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 Z diverge
On the headline score the gap is 41.5 points in favor of GOOGL. The widest single difference is Quality, where GOOGL leads by 50.0 points.
QualityGOOGL 84.4 · Z 34.4GOOGL +50.0
ValueGOOGL 65.8 · Z 18.8GOOGL +47.0
GrowthGOOGL 90.5 · Z 84.7GOOGL +5.8
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 Z the better stock?
GOOGL scores higher: GOOGL 79.5, Z 38.0 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 Z differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where GOOGL leads by 50 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. GOOGL leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are GOOGL and Z 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.