Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. GRND scored 90.4, PRGS scored 67.9 — GRND leads.
Compare another set
GRND
Grindr Inc.
Software - Application · Quality-Growth
90.4
$15.03 · $2.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
22.5
GRND 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
CheapestPRGS18.1x
Fastest growthGRND+32.4%
Highest qualityGRND94 / 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)
GRND
stronger →← stronger
PRGS
94
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
67
96
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
66
82
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
71
GRND is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
GRND
PRGS
$154mC
FCF
$319mC
+32.4%A
Rev
+6.4%C+
Negative equity
D/E
2.39D
32.0xB
P/E
18.1xA-
1.13B+
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
GRND
PRGS
27% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
76% below
~7%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-23%/yr
+5%
1-yr DCF upside
+261%
+37%
5-yr DCF upside
+322%
+102%
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
GRND
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
PRGS
Why this score
Buying back stock
The companies
GRNDGrindr Inc.
Software - Application · $15.03 · beta 0.19
Why now
Software - Application · market cap $2.6b. 19% 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 +38% 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. 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 32x 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.
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 GRND and PRGS diverge
On the headline score the gap is 22.5 points in favor of GRND. The widest single difference is Growth, where GRND leads by 30.7 points.
GrowthGRND 96.3 · PRGS 65.6GRND +30.7
QualityGRND 93.7 · PRGS 67.3GRND +26.4
ValueGRND 81.9 · PRGS 70.9GRND +11.0
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 GRND or PRGS the better stock?
GRND scores higher: GRND 90.4, 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 GRND and PRGS differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where GRND leads by 31 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. GRND leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are GRND 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.