Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. HURN scored 69.6, CMPR scored 69.3 — HURN leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. CMPR's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but HURN's are as of March 2026 — a 3-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
HURN
Huron Consulting Group Inc.
Consulting Services · Quality-Growth
69.6
$167.05 · $2.7B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
0.3
HURN leads
CMPR
Cimpress plc
Specialty Business Services · Quality-Growth
69.3
$74.21 · $1.8B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestCMPR19.6x
Fastest growthHURN+11.7%
Highest qualityHURN67 / 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)
HURN
stronger →← stronger
CMPR
67
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
66
83
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
68
60
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
74
HURN is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
HURN
CMPR
$104mC
FCF
$116mC
+11.7%B
Rev
+9.8%B
2.25D
D/E
Negative equity
24.9xB
P/E
19.6xB+
1.47B
PEG
2.38C
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
HURN
CMPR
37% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
51% above
~17%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~18%/yr
-36%
1-yr DCF upside
-38%
-27%
5-yr DCF upside
-34%
-11%
10-yr DCF upside
-28%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
HURN
Why this score
Buying back stock
CMPR
Why this score
Durable high returns
The companies
HURNHuron Consulting Group Inc.
Consulting Services · $167.05 · beta 0.09
Why now
Consulting Services · market cap $2.7b. 11% off the 52-week high of $186.78. Revenue growing +12%, comfortably above the S&P median. 4 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $190.75 (implying +14% upside).
Moat
ROE 27% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which.
Risk
D/E 2.25 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer.
CMPRCimpress plc
Specialty Business Services · $74.21 · beta 1.82
Why now
Specialty Business Services · market cap $1.8b. Down 30% from 52-week high of $106.58 — deep drawdown territory.
Moat
FCF converts 121% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Down 30% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 1.82 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. Net margin 2.6% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
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 HURN and CMPR diverge
The two are effectively level on the headline score. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
GrowthHURN 83.1 · CMPR 68.4HURN +14.7
ValueHURN 60.5 · CMPR 74.2CMPR +13.7
QualityHURN 67.1 · CMPR 65.5level
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 HURN or CMPR the better stock?
HURN scores higher: HURN 69.6, CMPR 69.3 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 HURN and CMPR differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where HURN leads by 15 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. Neither name sweeps: they trade the lead across the three pillars, so the comparison is a trade-off rather than one being better on every measure.
How are HURN and CMPR 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.