Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. IBM scored 58.3, G scored 74.5 — G leads.
Compare another set
IBM
International Business Machines Corporation
Information Technology Services · Quality-Growth
58.3
$227.13 · $214.0B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
16.2
G leads
G
Genpact Limited
Information Technology Services · Quality-Growth
74.5
$34.40 · $5.8B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestG10.2x
Fastest growthIBM+7.6%
Strongest balance sheetG0.54
Highest qualityG80 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueG-56%
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)
IBM
stronger →← stronger
G
70
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
80
60
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
65
47
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
79
G is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
IBM
G
$13.1bA-
FCF
$549mC+
+7.6%B
Rev
+6.6%C+
1.89D
D/E
0.54B
20.2xB+
P/E
10.2xA
2.14C
PEG
1.16B+
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
IBM
G
20% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
56% below
~0%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-13%/yr
+20%
1-yr DCF upside
+117%
+25%
5-yr DCF upside
+126%
+32%
10-yr DCF upside
+139%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
IBM
No notable signals flagged.
G
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
The companies
IBMInternational Business Machines Corporation
Information Technology Services · $227.13 · beta 0.72
Why now
Information Technology Services · market cap $214.0b. Down 32% from 52-week high of $332.46 — deep drawdown territory. 23 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $240.56 (implying +6% upside).
Moat
Net margin 16% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 34% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 123% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Down 32% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up.
GGenpact Limited
Information Technology Services · $34.40 · beta 0.58
Why now
Information Technology Services · market cap $5.8b. Down 29% from 52-week high of $48.64 — deep drawdown territory. 11 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $42.18 (implying +23% upside).
Moat
ROE 22% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately.
Risk
Value re-rating depends on a catalyst. Without one — analyst day, divestiture, margin recovery, capital return — the stock can stay cheap on these multiples for years.
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 IBM and G diverge
On the headline score the gap is 16.2 points in favor of G. The widest single difference is Value, where G leads by 31.8 points.
ValueIBM 47.0 · G 78.8G +31.8
QualityIBM 70.2 · G 80.5G +10.3
GrowthIBM 59.9 · G 65.4G +5.5
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 G or IBM the better stock?
G scores higher: G 74.5, IBM 58.3 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 G and IBM differ most?
The widest gap is value, where G leads by 32 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. G leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are G and IBM 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.