COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
ADSK vs GRND
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. ADSK scored 82.2, GRND scored 72.0 — ADSK leads.
Compare another set
ADSK
Autodesk, Inc.
82.2
$253.68 · $53.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
10.2
ADSK leads
GRND
Grindr Inc.
72
$15.73 · $2.7B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestGRND33.5x
- Fastest growthGRND+32.4%
- Highest qualityADSK88 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueGRND-24%
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)
ADSK
stronger →← stronger
GRND
88
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
78
86
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
96
73
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
62
ADSK is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
ADSK
GRND
$2.7bB
FCF
$154mC
+18.3%B+
Rev
+32.4%A
0.85C+
D/E
—
37.0xB
P/E
33.5xB
0.96B+
PEG
1.18B+
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
ADSK
GRND
33% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
24% below
~16%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~8%/yr
-33%
1-yr DCF upside
+1%
-25%
5-yr DCF upside
+32%
-10%
10-yr DCF upside
+98%
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
ADSK
Why this score
- Durable high returns
GRND
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Short track record
The companies
ADSKAutodesk, Inc.
Why now
Software - Application · market cap $53.6b. Down 23% from 52-week high of $329.09 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +18%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.96 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 34 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $314.19 (implying +24% upside).
Moat
Net margin 19% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 46% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 187% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Trailing P/E 37x 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.
GRNDGrindr Inc.
Why now
Software - Application · market cap $2.7b. 15% off the 52-week high of $18.50. Revenue growing +32% — in hypergrowth territory. 5 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $20.80 (implying +32% upside).
Moat
Net margin 19% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. FCF converts 161% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined. 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 33x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. ROE -814% is below the long-run sustainable threshold of ~10% — capital efficiency would need to improve for the equity base to compound at the market rate. 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 ADSK and GRND diverge
On the headline score the gap is 10.2 points in favor of ADSK. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- ValueADSK 73.4 · GRND 61.7ADSK +11.7
- GrowthADSK 85.9 · GRND 96.3GRND +10.4
- QualityADSK 87.9 · GRND 78.2ADSK +9.7
Pillars run 0–100 against sector peers, so a 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.